Skip to main content

Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers

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)
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

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


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.


Gábor Lencse
Keiichi Shima

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)