Network Working Group Gabor Feher, BUTE
INTERNET-DRAFT Istvan Cselenyi, TRAB
Expiration Date: May 2001 Peter Vary, BUTE
Andras Korn, BUTE
November 2000
Benchmarking Methodology for Routers Supporting Resource Reservation
<draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-00.txt>
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft shadow directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
2. Table of contents
1. Status of this Memo.............................................1
2. Table of contents...............................................1
3. Abstract........................................................2
4. Introduction....................................................2
5. Existing definitions............................................2
6. Methodology.....................................................3
6.1 Evaluating the Results......................................3
6.2 Test Set up.................................................3
6.2.1 Single Tester Device...................................3
6.2.2 Two Tester Devices.....................................4
6.2.3 Testing Unicast Resource Reservation Sessions..........5
6.2.4 Testing Multicast Resource Reservation Sessions........5
6.2.5 Signaling flow.........................................6
6.2.6 Signaling Message Verification.........................6
6.3 Scalability Tests...........................................6
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
6.3.1 Maximum Signaling Message Burst Size...................7
6.3.2 Maximum Signaling Load.................................8
6.3.3 Maximum Session Load...................................9
6.4 Benchmarking Tests.........................................10
6.4.1 Performing the Benchmarking Measurements..............11
7. Acknowledgement................................................13
8. References.....................................................13
9. Authors' Addresses:............................................14
3. Abstract
The purpose of this document is to define benchmarking methodology
measuring performance metrics related to IP routers supporting
resource reservation signaling. Beside the definition and discussion
of these tests, this document also specifies formats for reporting
the benchmarking results.
4. Introduction
The IntServ over DiffServ framework [3] outlines a heterogeneous
Quality of Service (QoS) architecture for multi domain Internet
services. Signaling based resource reservation (e.g. via RSVP [6]) is
an integral part of that model. While this significantly lightens the
load on most of the core routers, the performance of border routers
that handle the QoS signaling is still crucial. Therefore network
operators, who are planning to deploy this model, shall scrutinize
the scalability limitations in reservation capable routers and the
impact of signaling on the forwarding performance of the routers.
An objective way for quantifying the scalability constraints of QoS
signaling is to perform measurements on routers that are capable of
resource reservation. This document defines a specific set of tests
that vendors or network operators can use to measure and report the
signaling performance characteristics of router devices that support
resource reservation protocols. The results of these tests will
provide comparable data for different products supporting the
decision process before purchase. Moreover, these measurements
provide input characteristics for the dimensioning of a network in
which resources are provisioned dynamically by signaling. Finally,
these test are applicable for characterizing the impact of control
plane signaling on the forwarding performance of routers.
This benchmarking methodology document is based on the knowledge
gained by examination of (and experimentation with) several very
different resource reservation protocols: RSVP [6], Boomerang [7],
YESSIR [8], ST2+ [9], SDP [10], Ticket [11] and Load Control [12].
Nevertheless, this document aspires to compose terms that are valid
in general and not restricted to these protocols.
5. Existing definitions
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
A previous document from the authors, "Benchmarking Terminology for
Router Supporting Resource Reservation" [4] defines performance
metrics and other terms that are used in this document. To understand
the test methodologies defined here, that terminology document must
be consulted first.
6. Methodology
6.1 Evaluating the Results
RFC2544 [4] describes considerations regarding the implementation and
evaluation of benchmarking tests, which are certainly valid for this
test suite also. Namely, the authors intended to create a system from
commercially available measurement instruments and devices for the
sake of easy implementation of the described tests. Simple test
scripts and benchmarking utilities for Linux are publicly available
from the Boomerang homepage [13].
During the benchmarking tests, care should be taken for selecting the
proper set of tests for a specific router device, since not all of
the tests apply to every type of Devices Under Tests (DUTs).
Finally, the selection of the relevant measurement results and their
evaluation requires experience and it must be done with an
understanding of generally accepted testing practices regarding
repeatability, variance and statistical significance of small numbers
of trials.
6.2 Test Set up
6.2.1 Single Tester Device
The ideal way to perform the measurements is connecting a tester
device (or, in short, tester) to both the incoming and outgoing
network interfaces of the DUT. The tester sends signaling messages
and data traffic to one or more incoming ports of the DUT, while the
outgoing network ports of the tested device, where the processed
signaling messages and the forwarded packets appear, are connected
back to the tester. Thus the tester device is capable to measure
performance metrics, such as the signaling message handling time,
various traffic forwarding times and the signaling loss. This
scenario can be seen in Figure 1 [4]. In this case the tester device
is a signaling initiator and a signaling terminator at the same time,
while additionally, it originates and terminates the data traffic
also.
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
+------------+
| |
+------------| tester |<-------------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
+----------->| DUT |--------------+
| |
+------------+
Figure 1
6.2.2 Two Tester Devices
The benchmarking described in this document can be performed with two
tester devices as well, separating the initiator and terminator
functionality into two pieces of equipment. In this case the
initiator tester device is the driver of the input network interfaces
of the DUT, while the second one, the terminator tester device, is
connected to the output network interfaces of the tested device
measuring the performance metrics on signaling messages and traffic
packets leaving the DUT. Figure 2 shows this scenario.
+--------+ +------------+ +----------+
| | | | | |
| sender |-------->| DUT |--------->| receiver |
| | | | | |
+--------+ +------------+ +----------+
Figure 2
The main benefit of the single tester device measurement setup is
that the tester knows the exact time when a signaling message or a
data packet enters to the DUT and when it leaves, thus it can
calculate the time dependent performance metrics (e.g. signaling
message handling time) easily. Using the two testers setup, the
testers must be clock synchronized in order to measure performance
metrics depending on time differences. Nevertheless, the scalability
tests do not require the evaluation of performance metrics; therefore
do not depend on the time synchronization.
The main benefit of the two tester scenario is that the load caused
by the generation and the evaluation of test flows are shared between
the two devices, unlike in the case of single tester setup, where all
of the measurement tasks must be done at the same device.
During the benchmarking tests, if the clocks are properly
synchronized in the two tester case, both test configurations are
suitable to carry out the measurements.
Although the definition of the benchmarking methodologies, later in
this document, uses the expressions of "initiator tester" and
"terminator tester"; they do not have to be two physically separated
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
appliances, but in the case of single tester setup, both the
initiator tester and the terminator tester refers to the single
tester device.
However, the person who performs the tests can choose the tester
setup at his or her will, the scenario configuration should always be
described properly in the report of the benchmarking results.
6.2.3 Testing Unicast Resource Reservation Sessions
Testing unicast resource reservation sessions requires that the
initial tester is connected to one of the networking interfaces of
the DUT and the terminator tester is connected to a different
networking interface on the tested device.
During the benchmarking tests, the initiator tester must use unicast
addresses for data traffic flows and the resource reservation
requests must refer to unicast resource reservation sessions. Both
data packets and signaling messages transmitted by the DUT must be
perceivable for the terminator tester.
6.2.4 Testing Multicast Resource Reservation Sessions
Testing multicast resource reservation sessions requires that the
initial tester is connected to more than one networking interfaces of
the DUT and the terminator tester is connected to more than one
network interfaces of the tested device whose are different from the
previous ones.
Furthermore, during the measurements, the data traffic flows,
originated from the initiator tester, must be sent to multicast
addresses and the tester device must request reservations referring
to multicast resource reservation sessions. Of course, both data
packets and signaling messages transmitted by the DUT must be
perceivable for the terminator tester, just like in the case of
unicast resource reservation sessions.
Since there are protocols supporting more than one resource
reservation schemes for multicast reservations (e.g. RSVP SE/FF/WF);
and in a view of the fact that the number incoming and outgoing
networking port combinations of the DUT might be almost countless;
the benchmarking tests, described here, do not require measuring all
imaginable setup situation. Still, routers supporting multicast
resource reservations must be tested against the performance metrics
and scalability limits on at least one multicast scenario. Moreover,
there is a suggested multicast test configuration that consists of a
multicast group with four signaling end-points including one traffic
originator and three traffic destinations.
The benchmarking test reports taken on DUTs supporting multicast
resource reservation sessions always have to consist of the proper
multicast scenario definition.
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
6.2.5 Signaling flow
This document often refers to signaling flows. A signaling flow is
sequence of signaling messages.
In the case of measurements defined in this document there are two
types of signaling flows: First, there is a signaling flow that is
constructed from signaling primitives of the same type. Second, there
is a signaling flow that is constructed in a special way: the
signaling flow is consisted of signaling primitive pairs. Signaling
primitive pairs are necessary in situations where one of the
signaling primitive make changes in the states of the DUT. In this
case, to avoid the effect of state changes, the pair of the signaling
primitive restores the modified states in the DUT. A typical example
for the second version of the signaling flows is an alternating
reservation set-up and tear-down signaling message.
Moreover, the signaling messages should be equally spaced on the time
scale when they are forming a signaling flow. This is mandatory in
order to obtain measurements that might be repeated later. Since
modern resource reservation protocols are designed to avoid message
synchronization, thus, equally spaced signaling messages are not
unrealistic in the real life.
The signaling flow parameters are the type of the signaling primitive
or pair of signaling primitives beside the period time of the
signaling messages.
6.2.6 Signaling Message Verification
Although, the conformance testing of the resource reservation is
beyond the scope of this document, defective signaling message
processing can be expected in an overloaded router. Therefore, during
the benchmarking tests, when signaling messages are processed in the
DUT, the terminator device must validate the messages whether they
fully conform to the message format of the resource reservation
protocol specification and whether they are the expected signaling
messages at the given situation. If any of the messages break the
protocol specification then the benchmarking test report must
indicate the situation of the failure.
Verifying data traffic packets are not required, since the signaling
performance benchmarking of reservation capable routers should not
deal with data traffic. For this purpose there are other benchmarking
methodologies that verify data traffic during the measurements, like
the one described in RFC 2544.
6.3 Scalability Tests
Scalability tests are defined to explore the scalability limits of a
reservation capable router. This investigation focuses on the
scalability limits related only to signaling message handling,
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
examination of the data forwarding engine is not in the scope of this
document.
During the scalability tests, no data traffic forwarding is allowed
on the DUT.
6.3.1 Maximum Signaling Message Burst Size
Objective:
The maximum signaling burst size is the number of the signaling
messages in a signaling burst that the DUT is able to handle without
signaling loss.
Procedure:
1. Select a signaling primitive or a signaling primitive pair and
form a signaling flow. The chosen signaling primitive or primitive
pair should be the same during the whole test run. The signaling
messages should follow each other back-to-back in the flow and after
"n" number of messages the flow should be terminated. In the first
test sequence the number "n" should be set to one.
Additionally, all the signaling messages in the signaling flow must
be conform to the resource reservation protocol definition and must
be parameterized in a way to avoid the signaling message processing
errors in the DUT.
2. Send the signaling flow to the DUT and count the signaling
messages received by the terminator tester.
3. When the number of sent signaling messages ("n") equals to the
number of received messages, the number of messages forming the
signaling flow ("n") should be increased by one; and the test
sequence has to be repeated. However, if the receiver receives less
signaling messages than the number of sent messages, it indicates
that the DUT is over on its scalability limit. The measured
scalability limit for the maximum signaling message burst size is the
length of the signaling flow in the previous test sequence ("n"-1).
In order to avoid transient test failures, the whole test must be
repeated at least 30 times and the report should indicate the median
of the measured maximum signaling message burst size values as the
output of the test. Among the test runs, the DUT should be reset to
its initial state.
There are signaling primitives, such as signaling messages indicating
errors, which are not suitable for this kind of scalability tests.
However, each signaling primitive that is suitable for the test
should be investigated.
Reporting format:
The report should indicate the type of the signaling primitive or
signaling primitive pair and the determined maximum signaling message
burst size.
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
Note:
In the case of routers supporting multicast resource reservation
sessions, the signaling burst can be also formed by sending signaling
messages to multiple networking interfaces of the DUT at the same
time.
6.3.2 Maximum Signaling Load
Objective:
The maximum signaling load is the maximum number of signaling
messages within a time unit that the DUT is able to handle without
signaling loss.
Procedure:
1. Select a signaling primitive or a signaling primitive pair and
form a signaling flow. The chosen signaling primitive or primitive
pair should be the same during the whole test run. The period of the
signaling flow should be adjusted that exactly "s" number of
signaling messages come into view in one second. In the first test
sequence the number "s" should be set to one.
Additionally, all the signaling messages in the signaling flow must
be conform to the resource reservation protocol definition and must
be parameterized in a way to avoid the signaling message processing
errors in the DUT.
2. Send the signaling flow to the DUT for at least one minute, and
count the signaling messages received by the terminator tester.
3. When the number of sent signaling messages ("s" times the duration
of the signaling flow) equals to the number of received messages, the
signaling flow period should be decreased in a way that one more
signaling message should fit into a one second interval of the
signaling flow ("s" should be increased by one). But, if the receiver
receives less signaling messages than the number of sent messages, it
indicates that the DUT is over on its scalability limit. The measured
scalability limit for the maximum signaling load is the number of
signaling messages fitting into one second of the signaling flow in
the previous test sequence ("s-1").
In order to avoid transient test failures, the whole test must be
repeated at least 30 times and the report should indicate the median
of the measured maximum signaling load values as the output of the
test. Among the test runs, the DUT should be reset to its initial
state.
In the case of this test, there are also signaling primitives which
are not suitable for this kind of scalability tests. However, each
signaling primitive that is suitable for the test should be
investigated just like in the case of the maximum signaling burst
size test.
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
Reporting format:
The report should indicate the type of the signaling primitive or
signaling primitive pair and the determined maximum signaling load
value.
6.3.3 Maximum Session Load
Objective:
The maximum session load is the maximum number of resource
reservation sessions that can exist simultaneously in a reservation
capable router.
Procedure:
1. Set up "n" number of reservation session in the reservation
capable router by sending the appropriate signaling messages to the
DUT. In the first test sequence the number "n" should be set to one.
2. In the case of soft-state protocols wait for a specified amount of
time ("T") while still maintaining the established reservations with
refresh signaling messages. Hard-state protocols can skip this step.
Time "T" must be at least as long as the protocol specifies as
reservation time out. This waiting is necessary to assure that DUT is
able to refresh the reservations.
3. Check whether all the "n" number of reservations exist in the DUT.
When all of them stayed alive, then repeat the test sequence by
increasing the number of reservations by one ("n"+1). However, when
any of the reservations was dropped by the DUT, then the test
sequence cancels and the determined maximum session load is the
number of resource reservation sessions set up successfully in the
previous test sequence ("n"-1).
In order to avoid transient test failures, the whole test must be
repeated at least 5 times and the report should indicate the median
of the measured maximum signaling load values as the output of the
test. Among the test runs, the DUT should be reset to its initial
state.
Reporting format:
The report should indicate determined maximum session load value.
Note:
When the number of reserved sessions grows over a number that counts
to a very high value in the given technology conditions, then the
test can be canceled and the report can state that the resource
reservation protocol implementation performs the maximum number of
reservation sessions over that limit (e.g. "Over 10.000 sessions").
Checking the active resource reservation sessions in a reservation
capable router might be difficult if the router does not support any
interface to monitor its interior states. Lack of such support other
methods should be used. One ultimate, but slow method is to send
overrated data traffic across all of the resource reservation
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
sessions and whether the DUT drops the right amount of data traffic,
then it means that all the reservation sessions are alive.
6.4 Benchmarking Tests
Benchmarking tests are defined to measure the QoS signaling related
performance metrics on the resource reservation capable router
device.
During the tests the DUT must not bump into its scalability limits.
This means that the router must not drop any signaling messages or
data packets. In the case of signaling message or data traffic loss,
the test must be stopped, and the parameters of the test must be re-
adjusted to prevent the DUT to leave its steady state operating
range.
During all of the benchmarking tests described here, the initiator
tester loads the DUT by sending signaling flows and traffic flows to
the terminator device across the DUT. Moreover, the signaling end-
points must also assure that the DUT maintains a certain number of
resource reservation sessions during the test lifetime.
Every the performance metric is measured under different router load
conditions, where this load is a combination of independent load
types:
a. Signaling load
b. Session load
c. Premium traffic load
d. Best-effort traffic load
The initiator tester device generates the signaling load on the DUT
by sending a signaling flow to the terminator tester. This signaling
flow is constructed from a specific signaling primitive or a
signaling primitive pair and has the appropriate period parameter.
The session load is generated by the signaling end-point reserving
resource reservation sessions in the DUT via signaling. During the
test, in the case of soft-state protocols, the initiator tester
device must maintain the reservation sessions with refresh signaling
messages periodically, when the resource reservation protocol defines
it. These reservation sessions should not need to be loaded with data
traffic.
The initiator tester device generates the premium traffic load by
sending a data traffic flow, which refers to an existing resource
reservation session, to the terminator tester across the DUT. The
traffic must consist of equally spaced and equally sized data
packets. To generate traffic load, it is recommended to use UDP
packets, however any other transfer protocol can be used. The premium
traffic must be reported by its traffic parameters: data packet size
in octets, the calculated bandwidth of the stream in kbps unit and
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
the transfer protocol type. The data packet size should include both
the payload and the header of the IP packet.
The initiator tester device generates the best-effort traffic load by
sending a data traffic flow, which does not refer to any resource
reservation sessions, to the terminator tester across the DUT. The
traffic must consist of equally spaced and equally sized data packets
and must be reported by its traffic parameters as it is described in
the case of the premium traffic load description.
These four load types have influence on each other from their nature,
but during the tests these cross-effects must be minimized. The
signaling load must establish as few temporary resource reservations
in the DUT as possible. For this reason, when a new resource
reservation session is set up in the DUT as a side effect of a
signaling message in the signaling flow, the signaling end-points
must arrange to restore the number of reservations in the router as
soon as possible. Furthermore, signaling messages are realized as
data packets in the real word, however during the measurements they
are not treated as premium or best-effort traffic.
6.4.1 Performing the Benchmarking Measurements
The test methodology is the same for all performance metrics.
Moreover, it is also easier and less time-consuming to perform the
measurements for all performance metrics at the same time in a test
cycles.
The goal is to take measurements on a DUT running a resource
reservation protocol implementation under different loaded
conditions. The load on the DUT is always the combination of the four
load components mentioned before.
Procedure:
The procedure is to load the router with each load component at a
desired level and take measurements on all of the performance
metrics. Once, the measurements are complete, repeat the test with a
different load distribution.
During the test sequences, in order to avoid transient flow behavior
influencing the measurements, the measurements should begin after a
delay of at least "T" and after the setup of the common load on the
DUT. The value of "T" depends on the parameters of the load
components and the resource reservation protocol implementations,
but, as a rule of thumb, it should be enough for at least 10 packets
from the traffic flows and 10 signaling messages from the signaling
flow to pass through the DUT and at least one refresh period to
expire in the case of soft-state protocols.
During the measurement of the performance metrics in a practical load
setup, not just one, but 100 measurement result sets should be
collected. The output of the test sequence is the median of the
performance metrics measured.
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
In order to avoid transient test run failures, that may cause invalid
results for the entire test, the test run must be repeated at least
10 times and the report should indicate the median of the measured
values. Moreover, after each test run the DUT should be reset to its
initial state.
To complete the benchmarking tests all applicable signaling
primitives should be included in at least one signaling flow that is
used for benchmarking purposes.
At first sight, this procedure may look easy to carry out, but in
fact there are lots of difficulties to overcome. The following
guidelines may help in reducing the complexity of creating a
conforming measurement setup.
1. It is reasonable to select different load levels for each load
component (load levels) and then measure the performance metrics with
all combinations of these individual load levels. Thus, the
measurements results can be thought of as a four-dimension table,
where each dimension is a load component.
2. The number of different load combinations depends on the number of
different load levels within a load component. Working with many
different load levels is highly unfeasible and therefore not
suggested. Instead, there are proposed levels and parameters for each
load component.
The data traffic parameters for the traffic load components have to
be selected from generally used traffic parameters. It is recommended
to choose a packet size of: 54, 64, 128, 256, 1024, 1518, 2048 and
4472 bytes (these are the same values that are used in RFC 2544 that
introduces methodology for benchmarking network interconnect
devices). Additionally, the size of the packets should always remain
below the MTU of the network segment. The packet rate is recommended
to be one of 1, 10, 100 or 1000 packets/s. Since the number of
combinations for these traffic parameters is still large, the highly
recommended values are 64, 128 and 1024 bytes for the packet size and
10 and 1000 packets/s packet rate. These values adequately represent
a wide range of traffic types common in today's Internet. Thus, there
are 6 different load levels for the traffic load generation.
The number of session load levels should be at least 4 and the actual
value of the session load should be equally distributed between 1 and
the maximum session load value.
The number of signaling load levels should be at least 4 as well, and
the actual value of the signaling load should be equally distributed
between 1 and the maximum signaling load value.
3. The load component levels should be extended by the situation,
when there is no outcome of the particular load component. This means
that there is no traffic flow in the case of traffic load components;
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
or there is no signaling flow in the case of the signaling load
component; or there are no resource reservation sessions in the case
of the session load component.
Including these levels, the suggested number of test are: 5
(signaling load) * 5 (session load) * 7 (premium traffic load) * 7
(best-effort traffic load).
Reporting format:
As the whole report description requires a four-dimension table,
which is hard to visualize for a human being, therefore the results
are extracted into ordinary two-dimensional tables. Each table has
two fixed load component quantities and the other two load component
levels are the row and column for the table. Naturally, these load
component levels must be described properly. Following the suggested
load levels, 25 different tables should be prepared to describe the
benchmarking results.
On set of such tables describe the benchmarking results when a
specified signaling primitives compose the signaling flow used to
generate the signaling load. There should be one set of tables for
each signaling primitive or signaling primitive pair.
Note:
Of course in the case of multicast resource reservation sessions, the
combination number of the different multicast scenarios multiplies
the number benchmarking tests also.
7. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
help in forming this document: Joakim Bergkvist and Norbert Vegh from
Telia Research AB, Sweden, Balazs Szabo, Gabor Kovacs from High Speed
Networks Laboratory of BUTE.
8. References
[1] S. Bradner, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991
[2] R. Mandeville, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998
[3] Y. Bernet, et. al., "A Framework For Integrated Services
Operation Over Diffserv Networks", Internet Draft, May 2000,
<draft-ietf-issll-diffserv-rsvp-05.txt>
[4] G. Feher, I. Cselenyi, A. Korn, P. Vary, "Benchmarking
Terminology for Routers Supporting Resource Reservation",
Internet Draft, November 2000, <draft-feher-benchres-method-
01.txt>
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
[5] S. Bradner, J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999
[6] B. Braden, Ed., et. al., "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) -
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[7] J. Bergkvist, I. Cselenyi, "Boomerang Protocol Specification",
Internet Draft, June 1999, <draft-bergkvist-boomerang-spec-
00.txt>
[8] P. Pan, H. Schulzrinne, "YESSIR: A Simple Reservation Mechanism
for the Internet", Computer Communication Review, on-line
version, volume 29, number 2, April 1999
[9] L. Delgrossi, L. Berger, "Internet Stream Protocol Version 2
(ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+", RFC 1819, August
1995
[10] P. White, J. Crowcroft, "A Case for Dynamic Sender-Initiated
Reservation in the Internet", Journal on High Speed Networks,
Special Issue on QoS Routing and Signaling, Vol 7 No 2, 1998
[11] A. Eriksson, C. Gehrmann, "Robust and Secure Light-weight
Resource Reservation for Unicast IP Traffic", International WS
on QoS'98, IWQoS'98, May 18-20, 1998
[12] L. Westberg, Z. R. Turanyi, D. Partain, Load Control of Real-
Time Traffic, A Two-bit Resource Allocation Scheme, Internet
Draft, April 2000, <draft-westberg-loadcntr-03.txt>
[13] Boomerang Team, "Boomerang homepage - Benchmarking Tools",
http://boomerang.ttt.bme.hu
9. Authors' Addresses:
Gabor Feher
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BUTE)
Department of Telecommunications and Telematics
Pazmany Peter Setany 1/D, H-1117, Budapest,
Phone: +36 1 463-3110
Email: feher@ttt-atm.ttt.bme.hu
Istvan Cselenyi
Telia Research AB
Vitsandsgatan 9B
SE 12386, Farsta
SWEDEN,
Phone: +46 8 713-8173
Email: istvan.i.cselenyi@telia.se
Andras Korn
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BUTE)
Institute of Mathematics, Department of Analysis
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT <draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-method-01.txt> November 2000
Egry Jozsef u. 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36 1 463-2475
Email: korn@math.bme.hu
Peter Vary
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BUTE)
Department of Telecommunications and Telematics
Pazmany Peter Setany 1/D, H-1117, Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36 1 463-3110
Email: vary@ttt-atm.ttt.bme.hu
Feher, Cselenyi, Korn, Vary Expires May 2001 [Page 15]