%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful instead of this I-D.
@techreport{lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04,
    number =    {draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful/04/},
    author =    {Gábor Lencse and Keiichi Shima},
    title =     {{Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers}},
    pagetotal = 22,
    year =      2022,
    month =     jun,
    day =       30,
    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.},
}