Metrics and Methods for IP Capacity
draft-morton-ippm-capcity-metric-method-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          A. Morton
Internet-Draft                                                 AT&T Labs
Updates: ???? (if approved)                                      R. Geib
Intended status: Standards Track                        Deutsche Telekom
Expires: January 9, 2020                                   L. Ciavattone
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                            July 8, 2019

                  Metrics and Methods for IP Capacity
               draft-morton-ippm-capcity-metric-method-00

Abstract

   This memo revisits the problem of Network Capacity metrics first
   examined in RFC 5136.  The memo specifies a more practical Maximum
   IP-layer Capacity metric definition catering for measurement
   purposes, and outlines the corresponding methods of measurement.

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.

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 January 9, 2020.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Metric Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Formal Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Metric Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions . . . . . .   7
     4.5.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.6.  Reporting the Metric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Load Rate Adjustment Algorithm (from udpst) . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The IETF's efforts to define Network and Bulk Transport Capacity have
   been chartered and progressed for over twenty years.  Over that time,
   the performance community has seen development of Informative
   definitions in RFC 3148 for Framework for Bulk Transport Capacity
   (BTC), RFC 5136 for Network Capacity and Maximum IP-layer Capacity,
   and the Experimental metric definitions and methods in [RFC8337],
   Model-Based Metrics for BTC.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   This memo recognizes the importance of a definition of a Maximum IP-
   layer Capacity Metric at this time, a definition that is both
   practical and effective for the performance community's needs,
   including Internet users.  The metric definition is intended for
   Active Methods of Measurement [RFC7799], and a method of measurement
   is included here.

   The most direct active measurement of IP-layer Capacity would use IP
   packets, but in practice a transport header is needed to traverse
   address and port translators.  UDP offeres the most direct assessment
   possibility, and in the [copycat][copycat] measurement study to
   investigate whether UDP is viable as a general Internet transport
   protocol, the authors found that a high percentage of paths tested
   support UDP transport.  A number of liaisons have been exchanged on
   this topic [ refs to ITU-T SG12, ETSI STQ, BBF liaisons ], discussing
   the laboratory and field tests that support the UDP-based approach to
   IP-layer Capacity measurement.

   This memo also recognizes the many updates to the IP Performance
   Metrics Framework [RFC2330] published over twenty years, and makes
   use of [RFC7312] for Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework, and RFC
   8468 [RFC8468]IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence Updates.

   NOTE: The text contains Author comments, in brackets [RG: , acm: ]

2.  Scope and Goals

   The scope of this memo is to define a metric and corresponding method
   to unambiguously perform Active measurements of Maximum IP-Layer
   Capacity.

   The main goal is to harmonize the specified metric and method across
   the industry, and this memo is the vehicle through which working
   group (and eventually, IETF) consensus will be captured and
   communicated to achieve broad agreement, and possibly changes in
   other Standards Development Organizations (SDO).

   A local goal is provide efficient test procedures where possible, and
   to recommend reporting with additional interpretation of the results.
   Also, to foster the development of protocol support for this metric
   and method of measurement.

3.  Motivation

   As with any problem that has been worked for many years in various
   SDOs without any special attempts at coordination, various solutions
   for metrics and methods have emerged.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   There are five factors that have changed (or begun to change) in the
   last 5 years, and the presence of any one of them on the path
   requires features in the measurement design to account for the
   changes:

   1.  Internet access is no longer the bottleneck for many users

   2.  Both speed and latency are important to user's satisfaction

   3.  UDP's growing role in Transport, in areas where TCP once
       dominated.

   4.  Content and applications moving closer to users.

   5.  Possibly less traffic crossing ISP gateways in future.

4.  Metric Definitions

   This section sets requirements for the following components to
   support the Maximum IP-layer Capacity Metric.

4.1.  Formal Name

   Type-P-Max-IP-Capacity, or informally called Maximum IP-layer
   Capacity.

   Note that Type-P depends on the chosen method.

4.2.  Parameters

   This section lists the REQUIRED input factors to specify a Route
   metric.

   o  Src, the address of a host (such as the globally routable IP
      address).

   o  Dst, the address of a host (such as the globally routable IP
      address).

   o  i, the limit on the number of Hops a specific packet may visit as
      it traverses from the host at Src to the host at Dst (such as the
      TTL or Hop Limit).

   o  MaxHops, the maximum value of i used, (i=1,2,3,...MaxHops).

   o  T, the time at the start of measurement interval

   o  I, the duration of measurement interval

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   o  dt, the duration of N equal sub-intervals in I

   o  Ts, the host time of a transmitted test packet as measured at
      MP(Src), meaning Measurement Point at the Source.

   o  Ta, the host time of a test packet's *arrival* as measured at
      MP(Dst), assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable"
      time (see parameter below).

   o  Tmax, a maximum waiting time for test packets to arrive at the
      destination, set sufficiently long to disambiguate packets with
      long delays from packets that are discarded (lost), such that the
      distribution of one-way delay is not truncated.

   o  F, the number of different flows synthesized by the method.

   o  flow, the stream of packets with the same n-tuple of designated
      header fields that (when held constant) result in identical
      treatment in a multi-path decision (such as the decision taken in
      load balancing).  Note: The IPv6 flow label MAY be included in the
      flow definition when routers have complied with [RFC6438]
      guidelines at the Tunnel End Points (TEP), and the source of the
      measurement is a TEP.

   o  Type-P, the complete description of the packets for which this
      assessment applies (including the flow-defining fields).  Note
      that the UDP transport layer is one requirement specified below.

   o  PM, a list of fundamental metrics, such as loss, delay, and
      reordering, and corresponding Target performance threshold.  At
      least one fundamental metric and Target performance threshold MUST
      be supplied (such as One-way IP Packet Loss [RFC7680] equal to
      zero).

4.3.  Metric Definitions

   This section defines the REQUIRED aspects of the measureable Maximum
   IP-layer Capacity metric (unless otherwise indicated) for
   measurements between specified Source and Destination hosts:

   Define the IP-layer capacity, Maximum_C(T,I,PM), to be the maximum
   number of IP-layer bits (including header and data fields) that can
   be transmitted from the Src host and correctly received by the Dst
   host during one contiguous sub-interval, dt in length, during the
   interval [T, T+I], and where the packet count of that single sub-
   interval dtn in [T, T+I] indicates the maximum number of IP-layer
   bits n0[dtn-1,dtn] which was captured as part of all packet counts n
   for all dt in [T, T+I].  The interval dt SHOULD be set to a natural

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   number m so that T+I = T + m*dt with dtn - dtn-1 = dt and with 0 < n
   <= m.  Parameter PM represents the other performance metrics [see
   section Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions below] and
   their measurement results for the maximum IP-layer capacity.  At
   least one target performance threshold MUST be defined.  If more than
   one target performance threshold is defined, then the sub-interval
   with maximum number of bits transmitted MUST meet all the target
   performance thresholds.

   [RG: this requires more explanation.  Do you mean that all results
   must hit the target performance level?  Or is a one / two / k times
   hit out of x trials [T, T+I] a criterium indicating that a target has
   been reached?  Or do you look for the maximum capacity without packet
   loss and queuing or added RTD latency, respectively? acm: I think
   I've clarified this in the text above... ]

   Mathematically, this definition can be represented as:

                                     max  ( n0[dtn-1,dtn] )
                                    [T,T+I]
               Maximum_C(T,I,PM) = -------------------------
                                              dt
              where:
                 T                                      T+I
                 _________________________________________
                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
             dtn=0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   m=10

                       Equation for Maximum Capacity

   and:

   o  n0 is the total number of IP-layer header and payload bits that
      can be transmitted in Standard Formed packets from the Src host
      and correctly received by the Dst host during one contiguous sub-
      interval, dt in length, during the interval [T, T+I],

   o  Maximum _C(T,I,PM) corresponds to the maximum value of n0 measured
      in any sub-interval ending at dtn (meaning T + n*dt), divided by
      the constant length of all sub-intervals, dt.

   o  all sub-intervals SHOULD be of equal duration.  Choosing dt as
      non-overlapping consecutive time intervals allows for a simple
      implementation.  [RG: a sliding window of dt has its charme too,
      why exclude it? acm: seems less practical for real-time feedback.]

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   o  [acm: I think this is a discussion point, not essential to the
      definition] If traffic conditioning applies along a path for which
      Maximum _C(T,I,PM) is to be determined, different values for dt
      SHOULD be picked and measurements be executed during multiple
      intervals [T, T+I].  Any single interval dt SHOULD be chosen so
      that is an integer multiple of increasing values k times
      serialisation delay of a path MTU at the physical interface speed
      where traffic conditioning is expected.  This should avoid taking
      configured burst tolerance singletons as a valid Maximum
      _C(T,I,PM) result.

   o  The bandwidth of the physical interface of the measurement device
      must be higher than that of the interface whose Maximum _C(T,I,PM)
      is to be measured.

   In this definition, the m sub-intervals can be viewed as trials when
   the Src host varies the transmitted packet rate, searching for the
   maximum n0 that meets the PM criteria measured at the Dst host in a
   test of duration, I.  When the transmitted packet rate is held
   constant at the Src host, the m sub-intervals may also be viewed as
   trials to evaluate the stability of n0 and metric(s) in the PM list
   over all dt-length intervals in I.

   Measurements according to these definitions SHALL use UDP transport
   layer.  [RG: don't we need loss free transmission without added
   latency as criteria and add that UDP without closed loop flow control
   needs to be applied ? acm: I don't think we should require loss-free
   transmission, because most networks allow a small loss ratio which
   would likely appear to be zero loss in most trials.  Methods may use
   feedback, let's talk about how to diffentiate from flow-control]

4.4.  Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions

   RTD[dtn-1,dtn] is defined as a sample of the [RFC2681] Round-trip
   Delay between the Src host and the Dst host over the interval
   [T,T+I].  The statistics used to to summarize RTD[dtn-1,dtn] MAY
   include the minimum, maximum, and mean.

   RTL[dtn-1,dtn] is defined as a sample of the [RFC6673] Round-trip
   Loss between the Src host and the Dst host over the interval [T,T+I].
   The statistics used to to summarize RTL[dtn-1,dtn] MAY include the
   lost packet count and the lost packet ratio.

4.5.  Discussion

   Depending on the

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

4.6.  Reporting the Metric

   @@@@ not yet addressed,

5.  Method of Measurement

   This section needs development, based on Annex A of Y.1540.

   The duration of a test, I, MUST be constrained in a production
   network, since this is an active test method and it will likely cause
   congestion on the Src to Dst host path during a test.

   Additional Test methods and configurations may be provided in this
   section, after review.

5.1.  Load Rate Adjustment Algorithm (from udpst)

   A table is pre-built defining all the offered load rates that will be
   supported (R1 - Rn, in ascending order).  Each rate is defined as
   datagrams of size S, sent as a burst of count C, every time interval
   T.  While it is advantageous to use datagrams of as large a size as
   possible, it may be prudent to use a slightly smaller maximum that
   allows for secondary protocol headers and/or tunneling without
   resulting in IP-layer fragmentation.

   At the beginning of a test, the sender begins sending at rate R1 and
   the receiver starts a feedback timer at interval F (while awaiting
   inbound datagrams).  As datagrams are received they are checked for
   sequence number anomalies (loss, out-of-order, duplication, etc.) and
   the delay variation is measured (one-way or round-trip).  This
   information is accumulated until the feedback timer F expires and a
   status feedback message is sent from the receiver back to the sender,
   to communicate this information.  The accumulated statistics are then
   reset by the receiver for the next feedback interval.  As feedback
   messages are received back at the sender, they are evaluated to
   determine how to adjust the current offered load rate (Rx).

   If the feedback indicates that there were no sequence number
   anomalies AND the delay variation was below the lower threshold, the
   offered load rate is increased.  If congestion has not been confirmed
   up to this point, the offered load rate is increased by more than one
   rate (e.g., Rx+10).  This allows the offered load to quickly reach a
   near-maximum rate.  Conversely, if congestion has been previously
   confirmed, the offered load rate is only increased by one (Rx+1).

   If the feedback indicates that sequence number anomalies were
   detected OR the delay variation was above the upper threshold, the
   offered load rate is decreased.  If congestion has not been confirmed

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   up to this point, the offered load rate is decreased by more than one
   rate (e.g., Rx-30).  This allows the offered load to back off enough
   to compensate for the fast initial ramp-up.  Conversely, if
   congestion has been previously confirmed, the offered load rate is
   only decreased by one (Rx-1).

   If the feedback indicates that there were no sequence number
   anomalies AND the delay variation was above the lower threshold, but
   below the upper threshold, the offered load rate is not changed.
   This allows time for recent changes in the offered load rate to
   stabilize, and the feedback to represent current conditions more
   accurately.

   Lastly, the method for confirming congestion is that there were
   sequence number anomalies OR the delay variation was above the upper
   threshold for two consecutive feedback intervals.

6.  Reporting

   This section needs development...

   The following text TO BE REPLACED !!!!

   =======================================

   The results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row
   for each of the tested frame sizes and Number of Flows.  There SHOULD
   be columns for the frame size with number of flows, and for the
   resultant average frame count (or time) for each type of data stream
   tested.

   The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.

   The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
   tests SHOULD also be reported.

   The Corrected DUT Restoration Time SHOULD also be reported, as
   applicable.

   +-------------------+-------------------+----------------+----------+
   | Frame Size,       | Max IP-Layer      | Min,Ave,StdDev | Time dt, |
   | octets + # Flows  | Capacity, bps     |                | Sec      |
   +-------------------+-------------------+----------------+----------+
   | 64,100            | 26000             | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004  |
   +-------------------+-------------------+----------------+----------+

                     Maximum IP-layer Capacity Results

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   Static and configuration parameters:

   Number of test repetitions, N

   Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.

7.  Security Considerations

   Active metrics and measurements have a long history of security
   considerations [add references to LMAP Framework, etc.].

   <There are certainly some new ones for Capacity testing>

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no requests of IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
              Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
              July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2681]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
              September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   [RFC2889]  Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
              for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>.

   [RFC5136]  Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
              RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5136>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6201]  Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
              "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.

   [RFC6412]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
              for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
              Convergence", RFC 6412, DOI 10.17487/RFC6412, November
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6412>.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.

   [RFC6673]  Morton, A., "Round-Trip Packet Loss Metrics", RFC 6673,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6673, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6673>.

   [RFC6815]  Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
              "Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
              Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815>.

   [RFC6985]  Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
              Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.

   [RFC7312]  Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
              Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8337]  Mathis, M. and A. Morton, "Model-Based Metrics for Bulk
              Transport Capacity", RFC 8337, DOI 10.17487/RFC8337, March
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8337>.

   [RFC8468]  Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
              Hegde, "IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: Updates for
              the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework", RFC 8468,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8468, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8468>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [copycat]  Edleine, K., Kuhlewind, K., Trammell, B., and B. Donnet,
              "copycat: Testing Differential Treatment of New Transport
              Protocols in the Wild (ANRW '17)", July 2017,
              <https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final5.pdf>.

   [RFC8239]  Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
              Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8239>.

   [TST009]   Morton, R. A., "ETSI GS NFV-TST 009 V3.1.1 (2018-10),
              "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3;
              Testing; Specification of Networking Benchmarks and
              Measurement Methods for NFVI"", October 2018,
              <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-
              TST/001_099/009/03.01.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030101p.pdf>.

   [VSPERF-b2b]
              Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)",
              June 2017, <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
              Traffic+Generator+Testing#TrafficGeneratorTesting-
              AppendixB:Back2BackTestingTimeSeries(fromCI)>.

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         IP Capacity Metrics/Methods             July 2019

   [VSPERF-BSLV]
              Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in
              Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)",
              July 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/
              slides-102-bmwg-evolution-of-repeatability-in-
              benchmarking-fraser-plugfest-summary-for-ietf-bmwg-00>.

Authors' Addresses

   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1 732 420 1571
   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192
   Email: acm@research.att.com

   Ruediger Geib
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de

   Len Ciavattone
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748
   USA

   Email: lencia@att.com

Morton, et al.           Expires January 9, 2020               [Page 13]