Skip to main content

Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-09

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bmwg WG)
Authors Gábor Lencse , Keiichi Shima
Last updated 2024-06-20 (Latest revision 2024-06-16)
Replaces draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Associated WG milestone
Sep 2024
Benchmarking for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC4814 Pseudorandom port numbers to IESG review
Document shepherd Sarah Banks
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2024-02-29
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Warren "Ace" Kumari
Send notices to sbanks@encrypted.net
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-09
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                         G. Lencse
Internet-Draft                               Széchenyi István University
Intended status: Informational                                  K. Shima
Expires: 18 December 2024                                 SoftBank Corp.
                                                            16 June 2024

  Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
                       Pseudorandom Port Numbers
                draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-09

Abstract

   RFC 2544 has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
   interconnect devices.  RFC 5180 addressed IPv6 specificities and it
   also provided a technology update but excluded IPv6 transition
   technologies.  RFC 8219 addressed IPv6 transition technologies,
   including stateful NAT64.  However, none of them discussed how to
   apply RFC 4814 pseudorandom port numbers to any stateful NATxy
   (NAT44, NAT64, NAT66) technologies.  This document discusses why
   using pseudorandom port numbers with stateful NATxy gateways is a
   difficult problem.  It recommends a solution limiting the port number
   ranges and using two test phases (phase 1 and phase 2).  It is shown
   how the classic performance measurement procedures (e.g. throughput,
   frame loss rate, latency, etc.) can be carried out.  New performance
   metrics and measurement procedures are also defined for measuring
   maximum connection establishment rate, connection tear-down rate, and
   connection tracking table capacity.

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 https://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 18 December 2024.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Pseudorandom Port Numbers and Stateful Translation  . . . . .   4
   3.  Test Setup and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  When Testing with a Single IP Address Pair  . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  When Testing with Multiple IP Addresses . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Recommended Benchmarking Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Restricted Number of Network Flows  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Test Phase 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Consideration of the Cases of Stateful Operation  . . . .  10
     4.4.  Control of the Connection Tracking Table Entries  . . . .  11
     4.5.  Measurement of the Maximum Connection Establishment
            Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.6.  Validation of Connection Establishment  . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.7.  Test Phase 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.8.  Measurement of the Connection Tear-down Rate  . . . . . .  15
     4.9.  Measurement of the Connection Tracking Table Capacity . .  15
     4.10. Writing and Reading Order of the State Table  . . . . . .  21
   5.  Scalability Measurements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  Scalability Against the Number of Network Flows . . . . .  21
     5.2.  Scalability Against the Number of CPU Cores . . . . . . .  22
   6.  Reporting Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  Implementation and Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   8.  Limitations of using UDP as Transport Layer Protocol  . . . .  24
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.1.  00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

     A.2.  01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.3.  02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.4.  03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.5.  04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.6.  00 - WG item  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     A.7.  01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.8.  02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.9.  03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.10. 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.11. 05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.12. 06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.13. 07  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   [RFC2544] has defined a comprehensive benchmarking methodology for
   network interconnect devices, which is still in use.  It was mainly
   IP version independent, but it used IPv4 in its examples.  [RFC5180]
   addressed IPv6 specificities and also added technology updates, but
   declared IPv6 transition technologies out of its scope.  [RFC8219]
   addressed the IPv6 transition technologies, including stateful NAT64.
   It has reused several benchmarking procedures from [RFC2544] (e.g.
   throughput, frame loss rate), it has redefined the latency
   measurement and added further ones, e.g. the PDV (packet delay
   variation) measurement.

   However, none of them discussed, how to apply [RFC4814] pseudorandom
   port numbers, when benchmarking stateful NATxy (NAT44 (also called
   NAPT) [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], and NAT66) gateways.  (It should be
   noted that stateful NAT66 is not an IETF specification but refers to
   an IPv6 version of the stateful NAT44 specification.)  The authors
   are not aware of any other RFCs that address this question.

   First, it is discussed why using pseudorandom port numbers with
   stateful NATxy gateways is a difficult problem.

   Then a solution is recommended.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

2.  Pseudorandom Port Numbers and Stateful Translation

   In its appendix, [RFC2544] has defined a frame format for test frames
   including specific source and destination port numbers.  [RFC4814]
   recommends using pseudorandom and uniformly distributed values for
   both source and destination port numbers.  However, stateful NATxy
   (NAT44, NAT64, NAT66) solutions use the port numbers to identify
   connections.  The usage of pseudorandom port numbers causes different
   problems depending on the direction.

   *  As for the client-to-server direction, pseudorandom source and
      destination port numbers could be used, however, this approach
      would be a denial of service attack against the stateful NATxy
      gateway, because it would exhaust its connection tracking table
      capacity.  To that end, let us see some calculations using the
      recommendations of RFC 4814:

      -  The recommended source port range is: 1024-65535, thus its size
         is: 64512.

      -  The recommended destination port range is: 1-49151, thus its
         size is: 49151.

      -  The number of source and destination port number combinations
         is: 3,170,829,312.

      It should be noted that the usage of different source and
      destination IP addresses further increases the number of
      connection tracking table entries.

   *  As for the server-to-client direction, the stateful DUT (Device
      Under Test) would drop any packets that do not belong to an
      existing connection, therefore, the direct usage of pseudorandom
      port numbers from the above-mentioned ranges is not feasible.

3.  Test Setup and Terminology

   Section 12 of [RFC2544] requires testing first using a single
   protocol source and destination address pair an then also using
   multiple protocol addresses.  The same approach is followed: first, a
   single source and destination IP address pair is used, and then it is
   explained how to use multiple IP addresses.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

3.1.  When Testing with a Single IP Address Pair

   The methodology works with any IP versions to benchmark stateful
   NATxy gateways, where x and y are in {4, 6}. To facilitate an easy
   understanding, two typical examples are used: stateful NAT44 and
   stateful NAT64.

   The Test Setup for the well-known stateful NAT44 (also called NAPT:
   Network Address and Port Translation) solution is shown in Figure 1.

   Note that the [RFC1918] private IP addresses are used to facilitate
   an easy understanding of the example.  And the usage of the IP
   addresses reserved for benchmarking is absolutely legitimate.

                 +--------------------------------------+
        10.0.0.2 |Initiator                    Responder| 198.19.0.2
   +-------------|                Tester                |<------------+
   | private IPv4|                         [state table]| public IPv4 |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |                                                                  |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |    10.0.0.1 |                 DUT:                 | 198.19.0.1  |
   +------------>|        Stateful NAT44 gateway        |-------------+
     private IPv4|     [connection tracking table]      | public IPv4
                 +--------------------------------------+

       Figure 1: Test setup for benchmarking stateful NAT44 gateways

   The Test Setup for the also widely used stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]
   solution is shown in Figure 2.

                 +--------------------------------------+
       2001:2::2 |Initiator                    Responder| 198.19.0.2
   +-------------|                Tester                |<------------+
   | IPv6 address|                         [state table]| IPv4 address|
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |                                                                  |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |   2001:2::1 |                 DUT:                 | 198.19.0.1  |
   +------------>|        Stateful NAT64 gateway        |-------------+
     IPv6 address|     [connection tracking table]      | IPv4 address
                 +--------------------------------------+

       Figure 2: Test setup for benchmarking stateful NAT64 gateways

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   As for transport layer protocol, [RFC2544] recommended testing with
   UDP, and it was kept also in [RFC8219].  For the general
   recommendation, UDP is also kept, thus the port numbers in the
   following text are to be understood as UDP port numbers.  The
   rationale and limitations of this approach are discussed in
   Section 8.

   The most important elements of the proposed benchmarking system are
   defined as follows.

   *  Connection: Although UDP itself is a connection-less protocol,
      stateful NATxy gateways keep track of their translation mappings
      in the form of a "connection" also in the case of UDP using the
      same kind of entries as in the case of TCP.

   *  Connection tracking table: The stateful NATxy gateway uses a
      connection tracking table to be able to perform the stateful
      translation in the server to client direction.  Its size, policy,
      and content are unknown to the Tester.

   *  Four tuple: The four numbers that identify a connection are source
      IP address, source port number, destination IP address,
      destination port number.

   *  State table: The Responder of the Tester extracts the four tuple
      from each received test frame and stores it in its state table.
      Recommendation is given for writing and reading order of the state
      table in Section 4.10.

   *  Initiator: The port of the Tester that may initiate a connection
      through the stateful DUT in the client-to-server direction.
      Theoretically, it can use any source and destination port numbers
      from the ranges recommended by [RFC4814]: if the used four tuple
      does not belong to an existing connection, the DUT will register a
      new connection into its connection tracking table.

   *  Responder: The port of the Tester that may not initiate a
      connection through the stateful DUT in the server-to-client
      direction.  It may send only frames that belong to an existing
      connection.  To that end, it uses four tuples that have been
      previously extracted from the received test frames and stored in
      its state table.

   *  Test phase 1: Test frames are sent only by the Initiator to the
      Responder through the DUT to fill both the connection tracking
      table of the DUT and the state table of the Responder.  This is a
      newly introduced operation phase for stateful NATxy benchmarking.
      The necessity of this test phase is explained in Section 4.2.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   *  Test phase 2: The measurement procedures defined by [RFC8219]
      (e.g. throughput, latency, etc.) are performed in this test phase
      after the completion of test phase 1.  Test frames are sent as
      required (e.g. bidirectional test or unidirectional test in any of
      the two directions).

   One further definition is used in the text of this document:

   *  Black box testing: It is a testing approach when the Tester is not
      aware of the details of the internal structure and operation of
      the DUT.  It can send input to the DUT and observe the output of
      the DUT.

3.2.  When Testing with Multiple IP Addresses

   The number of the necessary and available IP addresses are
   considered.

   In Figure 1, the single 198.19.0.1 IPv4 address is used on the WAN
   side port of the stateful NAT44 gateway.  However, in practice, not a
   single IP address, but an IP address range is assigned to the WAN
   side port of the stateful NAT44 gateways.  Its required size depends
   on the number of client nodes and on the type of the stateful NAT44
   algorithm.  (The traditional algorithm always replaces the source
   port number, when a new connection is established.  Thus it requires
   a larger range than the extended algorithm, which replaces the source
   port number only when it is necessary.  Please refer to Table 1 and
   Table 2 of [LEN2015].)

   When router testing is done, section 12 of [RFC2544] requires testing
   first using a single source and destination IP address pair, and then
   using destination IP addresses from 256 different networks.  The
   16-23 bits of the 198.18.0.0/24 and 198.19.0.0/24 addresses can be
   used to express the 256 networks.  As this document does not deal
   with router testing, no multiple destination networks are needed,
   therefore, these bits are available for expressing multiple IP
   addresses that belong to the same "/16" network.  Moreover, both the
   198.18.0.0/16 and the 198.19.0.0/16 networks can be used on the right
   side of the test setup as private IP addresses from the 10.0.0.0/16
   network are used on its left side.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   10.0.0.2/16 – 10.0.255.254/16      198.19.0.0/15 - 198.19.255.254/15
              \  +--------------------------------------+  /
               \ |Initiator                    Responder| /
   +-------------|                Tester                |<------------+
   | private IPv4|                         [state table]| public IPv4 |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |                                                                  |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   | 10.0.0.1/16 |                 DUT:                 | public IPv4 |
   +------------>|        Stateful NAT44 gateway        |-------------+
     private IPv4|     [connection tracking table]      | \
                 +--------------------------------------+  \
                                      198.18.0.1/15 - 198.18.255.255/15

       Figure 3: Test setup for benchmarking stateful NAT44 gateways
                       using multiple IPv4 addresses

   A possible solution for assigning multiple IPv4 addresses is shown in
   Figure 3.  On the left side, the private IP address range is
   abundantly large.  (The 16-31 bits were used for generating nearly
   64k potential different source addresses, but the 8-15 bits are also
   available if needed.)  On the right side, the 198.18.0.0./15 network
   is used, and it was cut into two equal parts.  (Asymmetric division
   is also possible, if needed.)

   It should be noted that these are the potential address ranges.  The
   actual address ranges to be used are discussed in Section 4.1.

   In the case of stateful NAT64, a single "/64" IPv6 prefix contains a
   high number of bits to express different IPv6 addresses.  Figure 4
   shows an example, where bits 96-111 are used for that purpose.

   2001:2::[0000-ffff]:0002/64       198.19.0.0/15 - 198.19.255.254/15
              \  +--------------------------------------+  /
     IPv6      \ |Initiator                    Responder| /
   +-------------|                Tester                |<------------+
   | addresses   |                         [state table]| public IPv4 |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   |                                                                  |
   |             +--------------------------------------+             |
   | 2001:2::1/64|                 DUT:                 | public IPv4 |
   +------------>|        Stateful NAT64 gateway        |-------------+
    IPv6 address |     [connection tracking table]      | \
                 +--------------------------------------+  \
                                      198.18.0.1/15 - 198.18.255.255/15

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

       Figure 4: Test Setup for benchmarking stateful NAT64 gateways
                   using multiple IPv6 and IPv4 addresses

4.  Recommended Benchmarking Method

4.1.  Restricted Number of Network Flows

   When a single IP address pair is used for testing then the number of
   network flows is determined by the number of source port number
   destination port number combinations.

   The Initiator SHOULD use restricted ranges for source and destination
   port numbers to avoid the exhaustion of the connection tracking table
   capacity of the DUT as described in Section 2.  If it is possible,
   the size of the source port number range SHOULD be larger (e.g. in
   the order of a few times ten thousand), whereas the size of the
   destination port number range SHOULD be smaller (may vary from a few
   to several hundreds or thousands as needed).  The rationale is that
   source and destination port numbers that can be observed in the
   Internet traffic are not symmetrical.  Whereas source port numbers
   may be random, there are a few very popular destination port numbers
   (e.g. 443, 80, etc., see [IIR2020]), and others hardly occur.  And it
   was found that their role is also asymmetric in the Linux kernel
   routing hash function [LEN2020].

   However, in some special cases, the size of the source port range is
   limited.  E.g.  when benchmarking the CE and BR of a MAP-T [RFC7599]
   system together (as a compound system performing stateful NAT44),
   then the source port range is limited to the number of source port
   numbers assigned to each subscriber.  (It could be as low as 2048
   ports.)

   When multiple IP addresses are used, then the port number ranges
   should be even more restricted, as the number of potential network
   flows is the product of the size of the source IP address range, the
   size of the source port number range, the size of the destination IP
   address range, and the size of the destination port number range.
   And the recommended method requires the enumeration of all their
   possible combinations in test phase 1 as described in Section 4.4.

   The number of network flows can be used as a parameter.  The
   performance of the stateful NATxy gateway MAY be examined as a
   function of this parameter as described in Section 5.1.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

4.2.  Test Phase 1

   Test phase 1 serves two purposes:

   1.  The connection tracking table of the DUT is filled.  It is
       important, because its maximum connection establishment rate may
       be lower than its maximum frame forwarding rate (that is
       throughput).

   2.  The state table of the Responder is filled with valid four
       tuples.  It is a precondition for the Responder to be able to
       transmit frames that belong to connections that exist in the
       connection tracking table of the DUT.

   Whereas the above two things are always necessary before test phase
   2, test phase 1 can be used without test phase 2.  It is done so when
   the maximum connection establishment rate is measured (as described
   in Section 4.5).

   Test phase 1 MUST be performed before all tests performed in test
   phase 2.  The following things happen in test phase 1:

   1.  The Initiator sends test frames to the Responder through the DUT
       at a specific frame rate.

   2.  The DUT performs the stateful translation of the test frames and
       it also stores the new connections in its connection tracking
       table.

   3.  The Responder receives the translated test frames and updates its
       state table with the received four tuples.  The responder
       transmits no test frames during test phase 1.

   When test phase 1 is performed in preparation for test phase 2, the
   applied frame rate SHOULD be safely lower than the maximum connection
   establishment rate.  (It implies that maximum connection
   establishment rate measurement MUST be performed first.)  Please
   refer to Section 4.4 for further conditions regarding timeout and the
   enumeration of all possible four tuples.

4.3.  Consideration of the Cases of Stateful Operation

   The authors consider the most important events that may happen during
   the operation of a stateful NATxy gateway, and the Actions of the
   gateway as follows.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   1.  EVENT: A packet not belonging to an existing connection arrives
       in the client-to-server direction.  ACTION: A new connection is
       registered into the connection tracking table and the packet is
       translated and forwarded.

   2.  EVENT: A packet not belonging to an existing connection arrives
       in the server-to-client direction.  ACTION: The packet is
       discarded.

   3.  EVENT: A packet belonging to an existing connection arrives (in
       any direction).  ACTION: The packet is translated and forwarded
       and the timeout counter of the corresponding connection tracking
       table entry is reset.

   4.  EVENT: A connection tracking table entry times out.  ACTION: The
       entry is deleted from the connection tracking table.

   Due to "black box" testing, the Tester is not able to directly
   examine (or delete) the entries of the connection tracking table.
   But the entries can be and MUST be controlled by setting an
   appropriate timeout value and carefully selecting the port numbers of
   the packets (as described in Section 4.4) to be able to produce
   meaningful and repeatable measurement results.

   This document aims to support the measurement of the following
   performance characteristics of a stateful NATxy gateway:

   1.  maximum connection establishment rate

   2.  all "classic" performance metrics like throughput, frame loss
       rate, latency, etc.

   3.  connection tear-down rate

   4.  connection tracking table capacity

4.4.  Control of the Connection Tracking Table Entries

   It is necessary to control the connection tracking table entries of
   the DUT to achieve clear conditions for the measurements.  One can
   simply achieve the following two extreme situations:

   1.  All frames create a new entry in the connection tracking table of
       the DUT and no old entries are deleted during the test.  This is
       required for measuring the maximum connection establishment rate.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   2.  No new entries are created in the connection tracking table of
       the DUT and no old ones are deleted during the test.  This is
       ideal for the measurements to be executed in phase 2, like
       throughput, latency, etc.

   From this point, the following two assumptions are used:

   1.  The connection tracking table of the stateful NATxy is large
       enough to store all connections defined by the different four
       tuples.

   2.  Each experiment is started with an empty connection tracking
       table.  (It can be ensured by deleting its content before the
       experiment.)

   The first extreme situation can be achieved by

   *  using different four tuples for every single test frame in test
      phase 1 and

   *  setting the UDP timeout of the NATxy gateway to a value higher
      than the length of test phase 1.

   The second extreme situation can be achieved by

   *  enumerating all possible four tuples in test phase 1 and

   *  setting the UDP timeout of the NATxy gateway to a value higher
      than the length of test phase 1 plus the gap between the two
      phases plus the length of test phase 2.

   [RFC4814] REQUIRES pseudorandom port numbers, which the authors
   believe is a good approximation of the distribution of the source
   port numbers a NATxy gateway on the Internet may face with.

   It should be noted that although the enumeration of all possible four
   tuples is not a requirement for the first extreme situation and the
   usage of different four tuples in test phase 1 is not a requirement
   for the second extreme situation, pseudorandom enumeration of all
   possible four tuples in test phase 1 is a good solution in both
   cases.  It may be computing efficiently generated by preparing a
   random permutation of the previously enumerated all possible four
   tuples using Dustenfeld's random shuffle algorithm [DUST1964].

   The enumeration of the four tuples in increasing or decreasing order
   (or in any other specific order) MAY be used as an additional
   measurement.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

4.5.  Measurement of the Maximum Connection Establishment Rate

   The maximum connection establishment rate is an important
   characteristic of the stateful NATxy gateway and its determination is
   necessary for the safe execution of test phase 1 (without frame loss)
   before test phase 2.

   The measurement procedure of the maximum connection establishment
   rate is very similar to the throughput measurement procedure defined
   in [RFC2544].

   Procedure: The Initiator sends a specific number of test frames using
   all different four tuples at a specific rate through the DUT.  The
   Responder counts the frames that are successfully translated by the
   DUT.  If the count of offered frames is equal to the count of
   received frames, the rate of the offered stream is raised and the
   test is rerun.  If fewer frames are received than were transmitted,
   the rate of the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.

   The maximum connection establishment rate is the fastest rate at
   which the count of test frames successfully translated by the DUT is
   equal to the number of test frames sent to it by the Initiator.

   Note: In practice, the usage of binary search is RECOMMENDED.

4.6.  Validation of Connection Establishment

   Due to "black box" testing, the entries of the connection tracking
   table of the DUT may not be directly examined, but the presence of
   the connections can be checked easily by sending frames from the
   Responder to the Initiator in test phase 2 using all four tuples
   stored in the state table of the Tester (at a low enough frame rate).
   The arrival of all test frames indicates that the connections are
   indeed present.

   Procedure: When all the desired N number of test frames were sent by
   the Initiator to the Receiver at frame rate R in test phase 1 for the
   maximum connection establishment rate measurement, and the Receiver
   has successfully received all the N frames, the establishment of the
   connections is checked in test phase 2 as follows:

   *  The Responder sends test frames to the Initiator at frame rate
      r=R*alpha, for the duration of N/r using a different four tuple
      from its state table for each test frame.

   *  The Initiator counts the received frames, and if all N frames are
      arrived then the R frame rate of the maximum connection
      establishment rate measurement (performed in test phase 1) is

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

      raised for the next iteration, otherwise lowered (as well as in
      the case if test frames were missing in the preliminary test
      phase).

   Notes:

   *  The alpha is a kind of "safety factor", it aims to make sure that
      the frame rate used for the validation is not too high, and test
      may fail only in the case if at least one connection is not
      present in the connection tracking table of the DUT.  (So alpha
      should be typically less than 1, e.g.  0.8 or 0.5.)

   *  The duration of N/r and the frame rate of r means that N frames
      are sent for validation.

   *  The order of four tuple selection is arbitrary provided that all
      four tuples MUST be used.

   *  Please refer to Section 4.9 for a short analysis of the operation
      of the measurement and what problems may occur.

4.7.  Test Phase 2

   As for the traffic direction, there are three possible cases during
   test phase 2:

   *  bidirectional traffic: The Initiator sends test frames to the
      Responder and the Responder sends test frames to the Initiator.

   *  unidirectional traffic from the Initiator to the Responder: The
      Initiator sends test frames to the Responder but the Responder
      does not send test frames to the Initiator.

   *  unidirectional traffic from the Responder to the Initiator: The
      Responder sends test frames to the Initiator but the Initiator
      does not send test frames to the Responder.

   If the Initiator sends test frames, then it uses pseudorandom source
   port numbers and destination port numbers from the restricted port
   number ranges.  (If it uses multiple source and/or destination IP
   addresses, then their ranges are also limited.)  The responder
   receives the test frames, updates its state table, and processes the
   test frames as required by the given measurement procedure (e.g. only
   counts them for the throughput test, handles timestamps for latency
   or PDV tests, etc.).

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   If the Responder sends test frames, then it uses the four tuples from
   its state table.  The reading order of the state table may follow
   different policies (discussed in Section 4.10).  The Initiator
   receives the test frames and processes them as required by the given
   measurement procedure.

   As for the actual measurement procedures, the usage of the updated
   ones from Section 7 of [RFC8219] is RECOMMENDED.

4.8.  Measurement of the Connection Tear-down Rate

   Connection tear-down can cause significant load for the NATxy
   gateway.  The connection tear-down performance can be measured as
   follows:

   1.  Load a certain number of connections (N) into the connection
       tracking table of the DUT (in the same way as done to measure the
       maximum connection establishment rate).

   2.  Record TimestampA.

   3.  Delete the content of the connection tracking table of the DUT.

   4.  Record TimestampB.

   The connection tear-down rate can be computed as:

   connection tear-down rate = N / ( TimestampB - TimestampA)

   The connection tear-down rate SHOULD be measured for various values
   of N.

   It is assumed that the content of the connection tracking table may
   be deleted by an out-of-band control mechanism specific to the given
   NATxy gateway implementation.  (E.g. by removing the appropriate
   kernel module under Linux.)

   It is noted that the performance of removing the entire content of
   the connection tracking table at one time may be different from
   removing all the entries one by one.

4.9.  Measurement of the Connection Tracking Table Capacity

   The connection tracking table capacity is an important metric of
   stateful NATxy gateways.  Its measurement is not easy, because an
   elementary step of a validated maximum connection establishment rate
   measurement (defined in Section 4.6) may have only a few distinct
   observable outcomes, but some of them may have different root causes:

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   1.  During test phase 1, the number of test frames received by the
       Responder is less than the number of test frames sent by the
       Initiator.  It may have different root causes, including:

       1.  The R frame sending rate was higher than the maximum
           connection establishment rate.  (Note that now the maximum
           connection establishment rate is considered unknown because
           one can not measure the maximum connection establishment
           without assumption 1 in Section 4.4!)  This root cause may be
           eliminated by lowering the R rate and re-executing the test.
           (This step may be performed multiple times, while R>0.)

       2.  The capacity of the connection tracking table of the DUT has
           been exhausted.  (And either the DUT does not want to delete
           connections or the deletion of the connections makes it
           slower.  This case is not investigated further in test phase
           1.)

   2.  During test phase 1, the number of test frames received by the
       Responder equals the number of test frames sent by the Initiator.
       In this case, the connections are validated in test phase 1.  The
       validation may have two kinds of observable results:

       1.  The number of validation frames received by the Initiator
           equals the number of validation frames sent by the Responder.
           (It proves that the capacity of the connection tracking table
           of the DUT is enough and both R and r were chosen properly.)

       2.  The number of validation frames received by the Initiator is
           less than the number of validation frames sent by the
           Responder.  This phenomenon may have various root causes:

           1.  The capacity of the connection tracking table of the DUT
               has been exhausted.  (It does not matter, whether some
               existing connections are discarded and new ones are
               stored, or the new connections are discarded.  Some
               connections are lost anyway, and it makes validation
               fail.)

           2.  The R frame sending rate used by the Initiator was too
               high in test phase 1 and thus some connections were not
               established, even though all test frames arrived at the
               Responder.  This root cause may be eliminated by lowering
               the R rate and re-executing the test.  (This step may be
               performed multiple times, while R>0.)

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

           3.  The r frame sending rate used by the Responder was too
               high in test phase 2 and thus some test frames did not
               arrive at the Initiator, even though all connections were
               present in the connection tracking table of the DUT.
               This root cause may be eliminated by lowering the r rate
               and re-executing the test.  (This step may be performed
               multiple times, while r>0.)

           And here is the problem: as the above three root causes are
           indistinguishable, it is not easy to decide, whether R or r
           should be decreased.

   Experience shows that the DUT may collapse if its memory is
   exhausted.  Such a situation may make the connection tracking table
   capacity measurements rather inconvenient.  This possibility is
   included in the recommended measurement procedure, but the detection
   and elimination of such a situation is not addressed.  (E.g. how the
   algorithm can reset the DUT.)

   For the connection tracking table size measurement, first one needs a
   safe number: C0.  It is a precondition, that C0 number of connections
   can surely be stored in the connection tracking table of the DUT.
   Using C0, one can determine the maximum connection establishment rate
   using C0 number of connections.  It is done with a binary search
   using validation.  The result is R0.  The values C0 and R0 will serve
   as "safe" starting values for the following two searches.

   First, an exponential search is performed to find the order of
   magnitude of the connection tracking table capacity.  The search
   stops if the DUT collapses OR the maximum connection establishment
   rate severely drops (e.g. to its one tenth) due to doubling the
   number of connections.

   Then, the result of the exponential search gives the order of
   magnitude of the size of the connection tracking table.  Before
   disclosing the possible algorithms to determine the exact size of the
   connection tracking table, three possible replacement policies for
   the NATxy gateway are considered:

   1.  The gateway does not delete any live connections until their
       timeout expires.

   2.  The gateway replaces the live connections according to LRU (least
       recently used) policy.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   3.  The gateway does a garbage collection when its connection
       tracking table is full and a frame with a new four tuple arrives.
       During the garbage collection, it deletes the K least recently
       used connections, where K is greater than 1.

   Now, it is examined what happens and how many validation frames
   arrive in the there cases.  Let the size of the connection tracking
   table be S, and the number of preliminary frames be N, where S is
   less than N.

   1.  The connections defined by the first S test frames are registered
       into the connection tracking table of the DUT, and the last N-S
       connections are lost.  (It is another question if the last N-S
       test frames are translated and forwarded in test phase 1 or
       simply dropped.)  During validation, the validation frames with
       four tuples corresponding to the first S test frames will arrive
       at the Initiator and the other N-S validation frames will be
       lost.

   2.  All connections are registered into the connection tracking table
       of the DUT, but the first N-S connections are replaced (and thus
       lost).  During validation, the validation frames with four tuples
       corresponding to the last S test frames will arrive to the
       Initiator, and the other N-S validation frames will be lost.

   3.  Depending on the values of K, S, and N, maybe less than S
       connections will survive.  In the worst case, only S-K+1
       validation frames arrive, even though, the size of the connection
       tracking table is S.

   If one knows that the stateful NATxy gateway uses the first or second
   replacement policy and one also knows that both R and r rates are low
   enough, then the final step of determining the size of the connection
   tracking table is simple.  If the Responder sent N validation frames
   and the Initiator received N' of them, then the size of the
   connection tracking table is N'.

   In the general case, a binary search is performed to find the exact
   value of the connection tracking table capacity within E error.  The
   search chooses the lower half of the interval if the DUT collapses OR
   the maximum connection establishment rate severely drops (e.g. to its
   half) otherwise it chooses the higher half.  The search stops if the
   size of the interval is less than the E error.

   The algorithms for the general case are defined using C like
   pseudocode in Figure 5.  In practice, this algorithm may be made more
   efficient in a way that the binary search for the maximum connection
   establishment rate stops, if an elementary test fails at a rate under

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   RS*beta or RS*gamma during the external search or during the final
   binary search for the capacity of the connection tracking table,
   respectively.  (This saves a high amount of execution time by
   eliminating the long-lasting tests at low rates.)

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   // The binarySearchForMaximumConnectionCstablishmentRate(c,r)
   // function performs a binary search for the maximum connection
   // establishment rate in the [0, r] interval using c number of
   // connections.

   // This is an exponential search for finding the order of magnitude
   // of the connection tracking table capacity
   // Variables:
   //   C0 and R0 are beginning safe values for the connection
   //     tracking table size and connection establishment rate,
   //     respectively
   //   CS and RS are their currently used safe values
   //   CT and RT are their values for the current examination
   //   beta is a factor expressing an unacceptable drop in R (e.g.
   //     beta=0.1)
   //   maxrate is the maximum frame rate for the media
   R0=binarySearchForMaximumConnectionCstablishmentRate(C0,maxrate);
   for ( CS=C0, RS=R0; 1; CS=CT, RS=RT )
   {
     CT=2*CS;
     RT=binarySearchForMaximumConnectionCstablishmentRate(CT,RS);
     if ( DUT_collapsed || RT < RS*beta )
       break;
   }
   // At this point, the size of the connection tracking table is
   // between CS and CT.

   // This is the final binary search for finding the connection
   // tracking table capacity within E error
   // Variables:
   //   CS and RS are the safe values for connection tracking table size
   //     and connection establishment rate, respectively
   //   C and R are the values for the current examination
   //   gamma is a factor expressing an unacceptable drop in R
   //     (e.g. gamma=0.5)
   for ( D=CT-CS;  D>E; D=CT-CS )
   {
     C=(CS+CT)/2;
     R=binarySearchForMaximumConnectionCstablishmentRate(C,RS);
     if ( DUT_collapsed || R < RS*gamma )
       CT=C; // take the lower half of the interval
     else
       CS=C,RS=R; // take the upper half of the interval
   }
   // At this point, the size of the connection tracking table is
   // CS within E error.

      Figure 5: Measurement of the Connection Tracking Table Capacity

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

4.10.  Writing and Reading Order of the State Table

   As for the writing policy of the state table of the Responder, round
   robin is RECOMMENDED, because it ensures that its entries are
   automatically kept fresh and consistent with that of the connection
   tracking table of the DUT.

   The Responder can read its state table in various orders, for
   example:

   *  pseudorandom

   *  round-robin

   Pseudorandom is RECOMMENDED to follow the approach of [RFC4814].
   Round-robin may be used as a computationally cheaper alternative.

5.  Scalability Measurements

   As for scalability measurements, no new types of performance metrics
   are defined, but it is RECOMMENDED to perform measurement series
   through which the value of one or more parameter(s) is/are changed to
   discover how the various values of the given parameter(s) influence
   the performance of the DUT.

5.1.  Scalability Against the Number of Network Flows

   The scalability measurements aim to quantify how the performance of
   the stateful NATxy gateways degrades with the increase of the number
   of network flows.

   As for the actual values for the number of network flows to be used
   during the measurement series, it is RECOMMENDED to use some
   representative values from the range of the potential number of
   network flows the DUT may be faced with during its intended usage.

   It is important, how the given number of network flows are generated.
   The sizes of the ranges of the source and destination IP addresses
   and port numbers are essential parameters to be reported together
   with the results.  Please see also Section 6 about the reporting
   format.

   If a single IP address pair is used, then it is RECOMMENDED to use

   *  a fixed, larger source port number range (e.g., a few times
      10,000)

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   *  a variable size destination port number range (e.g. 10; 100;
      1,000; etc.), where its expedient granularity depends on the
      purpose.

5.2.  Scalability Against the Number of CPU Cores

   Stateful NATxy gateways are often implemented in software that are
   not bound to a specific hardware but can be executed by commodity
   servers.  To facilitate the comparison of their performance, it can
   be useful to determine

   *  the performance of the various implementations using a single core
      of a well-known CPU

   *  the scale-up of the performance of the various implementations
      with the number of CPU cores.

   If the number of the available CPU cores is a power of two, then it
   is RECOMMENDED to perform the tests with 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. number
   of active CPU cores of the DUT.

6.  Reporting Format

   Measurements MUST be executed multiple times.  The necessary number
   of repetitions to achieve statistically reliable results may depend
   on the consistent or scattered nature of the results.  The report of
   the results MUST contain the number of repetitions of the
   measurements.  Median is RECOMMENDED as the summarizing function of
   the results complemented with the first percentile and the 99th
   percentile as indices of the dispersion of the results.  Average and
   standard deviation MAY also be reported.

   All parameters and settings that may influence the performance of the
   DUT MUST be reported.  Some of them may be specific to the given
   NATxy gateway implementation, like the "hashsize" (hash table size)
   and "nf_conntrack_max" (number of connection tracking table entries)
   values for iptables or the limit of the number of states for OpenBSD
   PF (set by the "set limit states number" command in the pf.conf
   file).

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   number of sessions (req.)            0.4M       4M     40M     400M
   source port numbers (req.)         40,000   40,000  40,000   40,000
   destination port numbers (req.)        10      100   1,000   10,000
   "hashsize" (i.s.)                    2^17     2^20    2^23     2^27
   "nf_conntrack_max" (i.s.)            2^20     2^23    2^26     2^30
   num. sessions / "hashsize" (i.s.)    3.05     3.81    4.77     2.98
   number of experiments (req.)           10       10      10       10
   error of binary search (req.)       1,000    1,000   1,000    1,000
   connections/s median (req.)
   connections/s 1st perc. (req.)
   connections/s 99th perc. (req.)

     Figure 6: Example table: Maximum connection establishment rate of
                  iptables against the number of sessions

   Figure 6 shows an example of table headings for reporting the
   measurement results for the scalability of the iptables stateful
   NAT44 implementation against the number of sessions.  The table
   indicates the always required fields (req.) and the implementation-
   specific ones (i.s.).  A computed value was also added in row 6; it
   is the number of sessions per hashsize ratio, which helps the reader
   to interpret the achieved maximum connection establishment rate.  (A
   lower value results in shorter linked lists hanging on the entries of
   the hash table thus facilitating higher performance.  The ratio is
   varying, because the number of sessions is always a power of 10,
   whereas the hash table size is a power of 2.)  To reflect the
   accuracy of the results, the table contains the value of the "error"
   of the binary search, which expresses the stopping criterion for the
   binary search.  The binary search stops, when the difference between
   the "higher limit" and "lower limit" of the binary search is less
   than or equal to "error".

   The table MUST be complemented with reporting the relevant parameters
   of the DUT.  If the DUT is a general-purpose computer and some
   software NATxy gateway implementation is tested, then the hardware
   description SHOULD include: computer type, CPU type, and number of
   active CPU cores, memory type, size and speed, network interface card
   type (reflecting also the speed), the fact that direct cable
   connections were used or the type of the switch used for
   interconnecting the Tester and the DUT.  Operating system type and
   version, kernel version, and the version of the NATxy gateway
   implementation (including last commit date and number if applicable)
   SHOULD also be given.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

7.  Implementation and Experience

   The stateful extension of siitperf [SIITPERF] is an implementation of
   this concept.  Its first version only supporting multiple port
   numbers is documented in this (open access) paper [LEN2022].  Its
   extended version also supporting multiple IP addresses is documented
   in this (open access) paper [LEN2024b].

   The proposed benchmarking methodology has been validated by
   performing benchmarking measurements with three radically different
   stateful NAT64 implementations (Jool, tayga+iptables, OpenBSD PF) in
   (open access) paper [LEN2023].

   Further experience with this methodology using siitperf for measuring
   the scalability of the iptables stateful NAT44 and Jool stateful
   NAT64 implementations are described in
   [I-D.lencse-v6ops-transition-scalability].

   This methodology was successfully applied for the benchmarking of
   various IPv4aas (IPv4-as-a-Service) technologies without the usage of
   technology-specific Testers by reducing the aggregate of their CE
   (Customer Edge) and PE (Provider Edge) devices to a stateful NAT44
   gateway documented in (open access) paper [LEN2024a].

8.  Limitations of using UDP as Transport Layer Protocol

   The test frame format defined in RFC 2544 exclusively uses UDP (and
   not TCP) as a transport layer protocol.  Testing with UDP was kept in
   both RFC 5180 and RFC 8219 regarding the standard benchmarking
   procedures (throughput, latency, frame loss rate, etc.).  The
   benchmarking methodology proposed in this document follows this long
   established benchmarking tradition using UDP as a transport layer
   protocol, too.  The rationale for this is that the standard
   benchmarking procedures require sending frames at arbitrary constant
   frame rates, which would violate the flow control and congestion
   control algorithms of the TCP protocol.  TCP connection setup (using
   the three-way handshake) would further complicate testing.

   Further potential transport layer protocols e.g., DCCP [RFC4340] and
   SCTP [RFC9260] are outside of the scope of this document, as the
   widely-used stateful NAT44 and stateful NAT64 implementations do not
   support them.  Although QUIC [RFC9000] is also considered a transport
   layer protocol, but QUIC packets are carried in UDP datagrams thus
   QUIC does not need a special handling.

   Some stateful NATxy solutions handle TCP and UDP differently, e.g.
   iptables uses 30s timeout for UDP and 60s timeout for TCP.  Thus
   benchmarking results produced using UDP do not necessarily

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   characterize the performance of a NATxy gateway well enough when they
   are used for forwarding Internet traffic.  As for the given example,
   timeout values of the DUT may be adjusted, but it requires extra
   consideration.

   Other differences in handling UDP or TCP are also possible.  Thus,
   the authors recommend that further investigations should be performed
   in this field.

   As a mitigation of this problem, this document recommends that
   testing with protocols using TCP (like HTTP and HTTPS up to version
   2) can be performed as described in [RFC9411].  This approach also
   solves the potential problem of protocol helpers may be present in
   the stateful DUT.

   As for HTTP/3, it uses QUIC, which uses UDP as stated above.  It
   should be noted that QUIC is treated as any other UDP payload.  The
   proposed measurement method does not aim to measure the performance
   of QUIC, rather it aims to measure the performance of the stateful
   NATxy gateway.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Al Morton, Sarah Banks, Edwin
   Cordeiro, Lukasz Bromirski, Sándor Répás, Tamás Hetényi, Timothy
   Winters, Eduard Vasilenko, Minh Ngoc Tran, Paolo Volpato, Zeqi Lai,
   and Bertalan Kovács for their comments.

   The authors thank Warren Kumari, Michael Scharf, Alexey Melnikov,
   Robert Sparks, David Dong, Roman Danyliw, Erik Kline, Murray
   Kucherawy, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Éric Vyncke for their reviews and
   comments.

   This work was supported by the Japan Trust International Research
   Cooperation Program of the National Institute of Information and
   Communications Technology (NICT), Japan.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not make any request to IANA.

11.  Security Considerations

   This document has no further security considerations beyond that of
   [RFC8219].  They should be cited here so that they be applied not
   only for the benchmarking of IPv6 transition technologies but also
   for the benchmarking of any stateful NATxy gateways (allowing for
   x=y, too).

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
              J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
              February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4814]  Newman, D. and T. Player, "Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked
              Factors in Network Device Benchmarking", RFC 4814,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4814, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4814>.

   [RFC5180]  Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
              Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
              Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC7599]  Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
              and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
              Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8219]  Georgescu, M., Pislaru, L., and G. Lencse, "Benchmarking
              Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", RFC 8219,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8219, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8219>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9260]  Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9260>.

   [RFC9411]  Balarajah, B., Rossenhoevel, C., and B. Monkman,
              "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device
              Performance", RFC 9411, DOI 10.17487/RFC9411, March 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9411>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [DUST1964] Durstenfeld, R., "Algorithm 235: Random
              permutation",  Communications of the ACM, vol. 7, no. 7,
              p.420., DOI 10.1145/364520.364540, July 1964,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/364520.364540>.

   [I-D.lencse-v6ops-transition-scalability]
              Lencse, G., "Scalability of IPv6 Transition Technologies
              for IPv4aaS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              lencse-v6ops-transition-scalability-05, 14 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-v6ops-
              transition-scalability-05>.

   [IIR2020]  Kurahashi, T., Matsuzaki, Y., Sasaki, T., Saito, T., and
              F. Tsutsuji, "Periodic observation report: Internet trends
              as seen from IIJ infrastructure - 2020",  Internet
              Infrastructure Review, vol. 49, December 2020,
              <https://www.iij.ad.jp/en/dev/iir/pdf/
              iir_vol49_report_EN.pdf>.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   [LEN2015]  Lencse, G., "Estimation of the Port Number Consumption of
              Web Browsing",  IEICE Transactions on Communications, vol.
              E98-B, no. 8. pp. 1580-1588, DOI DOI:
              10.1587/transcom.E98.B.1580, 1 August 2015,
              <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/
              e98-b_8_1580.pdf>.

   [LEN2020]  Lencse, G., "Adding RFC 4814 Random Port Feature to
              Siitperf: Design, Implementation and Performance
              Estimation",  International Journal of Advances in
              Telecommunications, Electrotechnics, Signals and Systems,
              vol 9, no 3, pp. 18-26., DOI 10.11601/ijates.v9i3.291,
              2020,
              <http://ijates.org/index.php/ijates/article/view/291>.

   [LEN2022]  Lencse, G., "Design and Implementation of a Software
              Tester for Benchmarking Stateful NAT64xy Gateways: Theory
              and Practice of Extending Siitperf for Stateful
              Tests",  Computer Communications, vol. 172, no. 1, pp.
              75-88, DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2022.05.028, 1 August 2022,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
              S0140366422001803>.

   [LEN2023]  Lencse, G., Shima, K., and K. Cho, "Benchmarking
              methodology for stateful NAT64 gateways",  Computer
              Communications, vol. 210, no. 1, pp. 256-272,
              DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2023.08.009, 1 October 2023,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
              S0140366423002931>.

   [LEN2024a] Lencse, G. and Á. Bazsó, "Benchmarking methodology for
              IPv4aaS technologies: Comparison of the scalability of the
              Jool implementation of 464XLAT and MAP-T",  Computer
              Communications, vol. 219, no. 1, pp. 243-258,
              DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.03.007, 1 April 2024,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
              S0140366424000999>.

   [LEN2024b] Lencse, G., "Making stateless and stateful network
              performance measurements unbiased",  Computer
              Communications, DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2024.05.018,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
              S0140366424001993>.

   [SIITPERF] Lencse, G., "Siitperf: An RFC 8219 compliant SIIT and
              stateful NAT64/NAT44 tester written in C++ using
              DPDK",  source code,  available from GitHub, 2019-2023,
              <https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

Appendix A.  Change Log

A.1.  00

   Initial version.

A.2.  01

   Updates based on the comments received on the BMWG mailing list and
   minor corrections.

A.3.  02

   Section 4.4 was completely re-written.  As a consequence, the
   occurrences of the now undefined "mostly different" source port
   number destination port number combinations were deleted from
   Section 4.5, too.

A.4.  03

   Added Section 4.3 about the consideration of the cases of stateful
   operation.

   Consistency checking.  Removal of some parts obsoleted by the
   previous re-writing of Section 4.4.

   Added Section 4.8 about the method for measuring connection tear-down
   rate.

   Updates for Section 7 about the implementation and experience.

A.5.  04

   Update of the abstract.

   Added Section 4.6 about validation of connection establishment.

   Added Section 4.9 about the method for measuring connection tracking
   table capacity.

   Consistency checking and corrections.

A.6.  00 - WG item

   Added measurement setup for Stateful NAT64 gateways.

   Consistency checking and corrections.

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 29]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

A.7.  01

   Added Section 4.5.1 about typical types of measurement series and
   reporting format.

A.8.  02

   Added the usage of multiple IP addresses.

   Section 4.5.1 was removed and split into two Sections: Section 5
   about scalability measurements and Section 6 about reporting format.

A.9.  03

   Updated the usage of multiple IP addresses.

   Test phases were renamed as follows:

   *  preliminary test phase --> test phase 1

   *  real test phase --> test phase 2.

A.10.  04

   Minor updates to Section 3.2 and Section 7.

A.11.  05

   Minor updates addressing WGLC nits (adding the definition of "black
   box", and performing a high amount of grammatical corrections).

A.12.  06

   Language editing addressing preliminary AD review comments by
   eliminating the occurrences of first person singular ("we", "our").

A.13.  07

   Updates addressing IESG Last Call comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Gábor Lencse
   Széchenyi István University
   Győr
   Egyetem tér 1.
   H-9026
   Hungary

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 30]
Internet-Draft    Benchmarking Stateful NATxy Gateways         June 2024

   Email: lencse@sze.hu

   Keiichi Shima
   SoftBank Corp.
   1-7-1 Kaigan, Tokyo
   105-7529
   Japan
   Email: shima@wide.ad.jp
   URI:   https://softbank.co.jp/

Lencse & Shima          Expires 18 December 2024               [Page 31]