Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Giuseppe Fioccola , Eduard V , Paolo Volpato , Luis M. Contreras | ||
| Last updated | 2022-07-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-02
BMWG G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft E. Vasilenko
Intended status: Informational P. Volpato
Expires: January 7, 2023 Huawei Technologies
L. Contreras
Telefonica
July 6, 2022
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-02
Abstract
This document defines a methodology for benchmarking Segment Routing
(SR) performance for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). It builds
upon [RFC2544], [RFC5180], [RFC5695] and [RFC8402].
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119],
RFC 8174 [RFC8174].
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 7, 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
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. SRv6 Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Locator and Endpoint behaviors methods . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Traffic Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Throughput of a Source Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2. Throughput of a Segment Endpoint Node . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3. Throughput of a Transit Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. System Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR), defined in [RFC8402], leverages the source
routing paradigm. The headend node steers a packet through an SR
Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], instantiated as an
ordered list of segments. A segment, referred to by its Segment
Identifier (SID), can have a semantic local to an SR node or global
within an SR domain. SR supports per-flow explicit routing while
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR
domain.
However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast
the foundational SR packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document aims to extend the efforts of [RFC1242] and
[RFC2544] to SR network.
The SR architecture can be instantiated on two data-plane: SR over
MPLS (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6). This document is limited to
SRv6.
This document is limited to Headend encapsulations (H.Encaps.xxx) and
segment Endpoints (End, End.X). It is expected that future documents
may cover the benchmarking of SRv6 applications with decapsulation
(End.Dxxx), Binding (End.Bxxx), Fast ReRoute
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], etc.
SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new type of routing
header called the SR Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. An instruction is
associated with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address. An SRv6
segment is also called an SRv6 SID. An SR Policy is instantiated as
an ordered list of SRv6 SIDs in the routing header. The active
segment is indicated by the Destination Address (DA) of the packet.
SRv6 involves 3 types of forwarding plane operations:
o PUSH consists of the insertion of one or more segments on top of
the incoming packet. It is the SRH attachment in the case of
SRv6.
o NEXT consists of the inspection of the next segment. The active
segment is completed and the next segment is activated. It is the
copy of the next segment from the SRH to the destination address
of the IPv6 header in SRv6.
o CONTINUE happens when the active segment is not completed; hence,
it remains active. It is the plain IPv6 forwarding action of a
regular IPv6 packet according to its destination address in SRv6.
SR list for PUSH operation is typically constructed by SR Policy in
ingress node, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
[RFC5695] describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking of
MPLS forwarding devices, by considering the most common MPLS packet
forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
[RFC5180] provides benchmarking methodology recommendations that
address IPv6-specific aspects, such as evaluating the forwarding
performance of traffic containing extension headers.
The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of Segment Routing over IPv6. The methodology
described is a complement for [RFC5180] and [RFC5695].
2. SRv6 Forwarding
An SRv6 SID is allocated in the form of an IPv6 address. For the
IPv6 data plane, a new type of IPv6 Routing Extension Header, called
Segment Routing Header (SRH) has been defined [RFC8754]. The SRH
contains the Segment List as an ordered list of IPv6 addresses: each
address in the list is a SID. A dedicated field, referred to as
Segments Left, is used to maintain the pointer to the active SID of
the Segment List.
There are three different categories of nodes that may be involved in
segment routing networks.
The SR source node is the headend node and steers a packet into an SR
Policy. It can be a host originating an IPv6 packet or an SR domain
ingress router encapsulating a received packet into an outer IPv6
packet and inserts the SRH in the outer IPv6 header. It sets the
first SID of the SR Policy as the IPv6 Destination Address of the
packet.
The SR transit node forwards packets destined to a remote segment as
a normal IPv6 packet based on the IPv6 destination address, because
the IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a segment.
Indeed, according to [RFC8200] the only node allowed to inspect the
Routing Extension Header (and therefore the SRH) is the node
corresponding to the destination address of the packet.
The SR segment endpoint node receives packets whose IPv6 destination
address is locally configured as a segment. It creates Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for its local SIDs. For each SR
packet, it inspects the SRH, may prepare some actions (like
forwarding through a particular port), then replaces the IPv6
destination address with the new active segment.
The operations applied by the SRv6 packet processing are different at
the SR source, transit and SR segment endpoint nodes.
The processing of the SR source node corresponds to the sequence of
the insertion of the SRH, composed of SIDs stored in reverse order,
and setting of the IPv6 Destination Address as the first SID of the
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
SR Policy. It can be performed by encapsulating a packet into an
outer IPv6 packet with an SRH.
The processing of the SR segment endpoint node corresponds to the
detection of the new active segment, which is the next segment in the
Segment List and the related modification of the IPv6 destination
address of the outer IPv6 header. Then packets are forwarded on the
basis of the IPv6 forwarding table.
The processing of the SR transit node corresponds to normal
forwarding of the packets containing the SR header. In SRv6 the
transit nodes do not need to be SRv6 aware, as every IPv6 router can
act as an SRv6 transit node since any IPv6 node will maintain a plain
IPv6 FIB entry for any prefix, no matter if the prefix represents a
segment or not.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] specifies the concepts of SR
Policy and steering into an SR Policy. The header of a packet
steered in an SR Policy is augmented with the ordered list of
segments associated with that SR Policy. SR Policy state is
instantiated only on the headend node, that steers a flow into an SR
Policy. Indeed intermediate and endpoint nodes do not require any
state to be maintained. SR Policies can be instantiated on the
headend dynamically and on demand basis. SR policy may be installed
by PCEP [RFC8664], BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], or
via manual configuration on the router. PCEP signaling can be the
case of a controller based deployment. For all these reasons, SR
Policies scale better than traditional TE mechanisms.
In addition to the basic SRv6 packet processing, the SRv6 Network
Programming model [RFC8986] describes a set of functions that can be
associated to segments and executed in a given SRv6 node.
Examples of such functions are described in [RFC8986], but, in
practice, any behavior and function can be associated with a local
SID in a node, to apply any special processing on the packet. The
definition of a standardized set of segment routing functions
facilitates the deployment of SR domains with interoperable equipment
from multiple vendors.
According to [RFC8986], 128 bit SID can be logically split into three
fields and interpreted as LOCATOR:FUNCTION:ARGS (in short
LOC:FUNCT:ARG) where LOC includes the L most significant bits, FUNCT
the following F bits and ARG the remaining A bits, where L+F+A=128.
The LOC corresponds to an IPv6 prefix (for example with a length of
48, 56 or 64 bits) that can be distributed by the routing protocols
and provides the reachability of a node that hosts some functions.
All the different functions residing in a node have a different FUNCT
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
code, so that their SIDs will be different. The ARG bits are used to
provide information (arguments) to a function. From the routing
point of view, the solution is scalable, as a single prefix is
distributed for a node, which implements a potentially large number
of functions and related arguments.
3. Test Methodology
3.1. Test Setup
The test setup in general is compliant with section 6 of [RFC2544]
but augmented by the methodology specified in section 4 of [RFC5695]
using many ports. It is needed to test the packet forwarding engine
that may have different performance based on the number of ports
served. The Device Under Test (DUT) may have oversubscribed ports,
then traffic for such ports should be proportionally decreased
according to the specific DUT oversubscription ratio. All ports
served by a particular packet forwarding engine should be loaded in
reverse proportion to the claimed oversubscription ratio. Tests
SHOULD be done with bidirectional traffic that better reflects the
real environment for SRv6 nodes. It is OPTIONAL to choose a non-
equal proportion for upstream and downstream traffic for some
specific aggregation nodes.
The recommended topology for SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking should be
the same as MPLS and it is described in section 4 of [RFC5695]. Port
numbers involved in the tests and their oversubscription ratio MUST
be reported. In general, Functions of the last SID (called
"behavior" in [RFC8986]) may be used to encode services (similar to
L2/L3 VPNs and much more) but it is out of the scope of this
document. This document is benchmarking only "source routing".
Hence, SIDs represent only Headend encapsulation (H.Encaps.xxx) or
segment Endpoint (End, End.X) that may be carried in IGP extensions.
It is OPTIONAL to test SRH in the combination with any other
extension headers (fragmentation, hop-by-hop, destination options,
etc.) but in all tests, SRH header should be present for the test to
be relevant for SRv6. It is RECOMMENDED to follow section 5.3 of
[RFC5180] to introduce other extension headers in proportion 1%, 10%,
50% that may better reflect real use cases.
Segment Routing may also be implemented as a software network
function in an NFV Infrastructure and, in this case, additional
considerations should be done. [RFC9004] updates the procedures of
the test to measure the Back-to-Back Frames since their
characterization is relevant in software-packet processing. Also,
[ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007] describes test guidelines for NFV capabilities
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
that require interactions between the components implementing NFV
functionality.
3.2. Locator and Endpoint behaviors methods
As specified in [RFC8986], topological segments have the structure
that consists of Locator and Endpoint behavior (End, End.X, etc), the
latter may have a few different flavors (PSP, USP, USD).
It is RECOMMENDED that the DUT and test tool support at least one
option for SID stack construction:
o IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
o OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
o Segment Routing Policy Architecture
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
It is RECOMMENDED that at least one routing protocol (OSPF or ISIS)
should be used for the construction of the simplest SRH with 1 SID.
It is RECOMMENDED that SR policy should be used for the construction
of SRH with 2 SIDs. It is possible to test longer SRH if there is an
interest.
It is RECOMMENDED that the top SID on the list should have an End.X
flavor type to emulate traffic engineering scenario. In all cases,
SID stack configuration SHOULD happen before packet forwarding would
be started. Control plane convergence speed is not the subject of
the present tests.
The Locator and Endpoint construction method and SR policy
construction method used MUST be reported according to Section 4.
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes
SRv6 tests will use the Frame characteristics similarly to section
4.1.5 of [RFC5695], except the need for a bigger MTU to accommodate
SRH.
It is to be noted that [RFC5695] requires exactly a single entry in
the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet that is not enough to simulate
a typical SR SID list. The number of entries in SRH MUST be
reported.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
According to section 4.1.4.2 of [RFC5695], the payload is RECOMMENDED
to have an IP packet (IPv6 or IPv4 with UDP or TCP) to better
represent the real environment.
It is assumed that the test would be for Ethernet media only. Other
media is possible (see section 4.1.5.2 of [RFC5695] for the POS
example). Recommended frame sizes are presented below. Any other
frame sized may be added if suspected of abnormal behavior. For
example, some architectures may allocate buffer memory in big fixed
chunks that may drop performance if frame sizes are chosen just a few
octet more than the fixed chunk size (the second chunk would have a
very low memory utilization).
Recommended frame sizes are the following:
o Ethernet Minimal: 64+8+n*16
o DUT Minimal Wire Speed: 128-256 (it depends on the range
recommended in the DUT specification)
o Ethernet Typical: 1518+8+n*16
o DUT Maximum Wire Speed: 9000
Note that 8 octets are added in the previous calculations for the SRH
header itself. While n*16 octets are added to accommodate SID
entries. The typical frame size values are listed above for the DUT
minimal and maximum wire speed, but they can be modified according to
the DUT characteristics. Indeed, the minimum wire speed frame size
can be considered based on the DUT specification but, in some cases,
many tests may be needed in the search for the real minimum wire
speed frame size. VLAN tag may additionally increase the frame size.
VLAN tag tests are OPTIONAL.
3.4. Protocol Addresses
IANA reserved an IPv6 address block 2001:0200::/48 for use with IPv6
benchmark testing (see section 8 of [RFC5180]). IPv6 source and
destination addresses for the test streams SHOULD belong to the IPv6
range assigned by IANA. It is not principal what Locator blocks
would be chosen for tests. It may be /52, /56, /64, or even bigger.
It is possible to test a few different Locator blocks if there is a
need.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
3.5. Trial Duration
The test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least 10 seconds longer
than the hold time for the respective protocol configuration to
verify that the DUT can maintain a stable control plane when the
data-forwarding plane is under stress. IGP protocols typically have
a shorter hold time, some BGP default configuration may be up to 180
seconds. It is needed to check the default hold time of the DUT for
the respective protocol used.
3.6. Traffic Verification
Traffic verification is following section 4.1.8 of [RFC5695].
4. Reporting Format
There are a few parameters that must be changed in section 5 of
[RFC5695] for SRv6 tests. New parameters that MUST be reported are:
o Port numbers involved in the tests and their respective
oversubscription ratio.
o Upstream/downstream traffic proportion (equal bidirectional or
some other split).
o SRv6 Forwarding Operations (PUSH/ NEXT/ CONTINUE).
o Number of Segments considered in the SRH and the type of behavior
used (according to [RFC8986]).
o SR Policy construction method (PCEP, BGP, manual configuration).
o Type of the payload (IPv6/IPv4, UDP/TCP).
Some parameters MAY be changed:
o Label Distribution protocol and IGP are the same in the context of
SRv6. Hence, it is called "Locator and Endpoint behaviors
methods".
o Port media type may be reported only one time for all tests if
only Ethernet media would be tested
5. SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking Tests
In general, tests are compliant with [RFC2544] but the important
correction discussed in section 6 of [RFC2544] is applied: ports
chosen for every test MUST stress all ports served by one forwarding
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
engine. It is better to check the DUT specification for the
relationship between ports and the forwarding engine to minimize the
number of ports involved. But it is possible to understand the worst
case by looking at the throughput and latency from the trial tests.
If any doubt exists about how full is the offered load for the
forwarding engine then it is better to stress all ports of the line
card or all ports for the whole router with a centralized forwarding
engine. Partial load on forwarding engine would show optimistic
results. Controllable traffic distribution between many ports (as
specified in section 4 of [RFC5695]) would need separate SID
announcements for separate ports. The search for No-Drop Rate (NDR)
should be done for every test as explained in section 6 of [RFC5695].
5.1. Throughput
This section contains the description of the tests that are related
to the characterization of a DUT's SRv6 traffic forwarding
throughput.
The list of segments for SRv6 is represented as a list of IPv6
addresses, included in the SRH. There are three distinct types of
nodes that are involved in segment routing networks.
5.1.1. Throughput of a Source Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Source Node. It is when the Source SR node, which
corresponds to the headend node, encapsulates a received packet into
an outer IPv6 packet and inserts the SR Header (SRH) as a Routing
Extension Header in the outer IPv6 header. The Segment List in the
SRH is composed of SIDs and the Source SR node sets the first SID of
the SR Policy as the IPv6 Destination Address of the packet.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are recommended, many are possible).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.1.2. Throughput of a Segment Endpoint Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Segment Endpoint Node. It is when the SR Segment
Endpoint node receives packets whose IPv6 destination address is
locally configured as a segment. The SR Segment Endpoint node
inspects the SR header: it detects the new active segment, i.e. the
next segment in the Segment List, modifies the IPv6 destination
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
address of the outer IPv6 header and forwards the packet on the basis
of the IPv6 forwarding table.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are recommended, many are possible).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.1.3. Throughput of a Transit Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Transit Node. It is when a Transit node forwards the
packet containing the SR header as a normal IPv6 packet because the
IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a segment.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are recommended, many are possible).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in section 6.2 of
[RFC5695] for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are recommended, many are possible).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.3. Frame Loss
Objective: To determine the frame-loss rate (as defined in section
6.3 of [RFC5695]) for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations of a DUT
throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame sizes.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are recommended, many are possible).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
5.4. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.4 of [RFC5695].
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.5. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
device or software reset for each of the SRv6 forwarding operations.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.5 of [RFC5695].
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5180] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
It is OPTIONAL to extend the Reset tests according to [RFC6201] in
order to reset only part of the DUT: only line card reset, only
process reset (for example ISIS), only one routing engine reset in
the configuration with routing engine redundancy, full power
interruption, partial power interruption, etc.
6. Security Considerations
Benchmarking methodologies are limited to technology characterization
in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and
constraints. Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network
security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and
production networks. The benchmarking network topology is an
independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may
forward the test traffic into a production network or misroute
traffic to the test management network.
There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
this document.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Al Morton for the precious comments
and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5695] Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5695, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5695>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
9.2. Informative References
[ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007]
ETSI, "ETSI GR NFV-TST 007: Network Functions
Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; Testing; Guidelines on
Interoperability Testing for MANO", 2020,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/NFV-
TST/001_099/007/02.06.01_60/gr_nfv-tst007v020601p.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
Policies in BGP", draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-
policy-18 (work in progress), June 2022.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18
(work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPFv3
Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-05 (work in progress), July 2022.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-
routing-ti-lfa-08 (work in progress), January 2022.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22 (work in progress),
March 2022.
[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>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC9004] Morton, A., "Updates for the Back-to-Back Frame Benchmark
in RFC 2544", RFC 9004, DOI 10.17487/RFC9004, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9004>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Eduard Vasilenko
Huawei Technologies
17/4 Krylatskaya str.
Moscow 121614
Russia
Email: vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com
Paolo Volpato
Huawei Technologies
Via Lorenteggio, 240
Milan 20147
Italy
Email: paolo.volpato@huawei.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BM for SRv6 July 2022
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 7, 2023 [Page 16]