Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(candidate for bmwg WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gábor Lencse , Keiichi Shima | ||
| Last updated | 2022-06-30 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Call For Adoption By WG Issued | |
| Document shepherd | Al Morton | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | acmorton@att.com |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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. We discuss why using pseudorandom port numbers with stateful NATxy gateways is a difficult problem. We recommend a solution limiting the port number ranges and using two phases: the preliminary phase and the real test phase. We show how the classic performance measurement procedures (e.g. throughput, frame loss rate, latency, etc.) can be carried out. We also define new performance metrics and measurement procedures for maximum connection establishment rate, connection tear down rate and connection tracking table capacity measurements.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)