Skip to main content

Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    bmwg mailing list <bmwg@ietf.org>, 
    bmwg chair <bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Considerations for Benchmarking 
         Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence' to Informational 
         RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route 
   Convergence '
   <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working 
Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17.txt

Ballot Text

All BMWG RFCs are Informational, but they are implemented by
test equipment vendors and cited in trade publications and
advertisements.

Technical Summary


This set of memos describes the process for benchmarking IGP
Route Convergence as described in the Applicability memo.
This approach measures convergence time in the dataplane,
and treats the Device Under Test as a Black Box.
The methodology and terminology memos define the metrics and
process for benchmarking route convergence that can be applied
to any link-state IGP such as ISIS and OSPF.


WG Summary

The drafts received extensive comment and review since their
initial acceptance on the WG charter in 2003.
Many active WG members affirmed that this set of drafts
were ready for publication (WGLC in October, 2005).
There was a subsequent cross-area review that resulted in
additional minor revisions, discussed and agreed by the WG.


Protocol Summary

These methods have been performed in at least one lab,
and review comments were posted based on that experience.


Several test equipment vendors commented actively during the WG
development.

RFC Editor Note