Methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection mechanisms
draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Rajiv Papneja | ||
| Last updated | 2006-06-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This draft provides the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection mechanisms especially the failover time of local protection (MPLS Fast Reroute as defined in RFC-4090). The failover to a backup tunnel could happen at the headend of the primary tunnel or a midpoint and the backup could offer link or node protection. It becomes vital to benchmark the failover time for all the cases and combinations. The failover time could also greatly differ based on the design and implementation and by factors like the number of prefixes carried by the tunnel, the routing protocols that installed these prefixes (IGP, BGP...), the number of primary tunnels affected by the event that caused the failover, number of primary tunnels the backup protects and type of failure, the physical media type on which the failover occurs etc. All the required benchmarking criteria and benchmarking topology required for measuring failover time of local protection is described Conventions used in this document
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)