INTERNET-DRAFT J. Dunn
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group C. Martin
Expires: May 2005 SI International
October 2004
Methodology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt
Status of this Memo
"By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be
disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in
accordance with RFC 3668."
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [IPROC].
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.
Abstract
The forwarding performance of an IP router is highly dependent on the
information in its forwarding information base. This document describes
the methodology to be used to determine the IP packet forwarding
performance of an IP router as a function of the routers ability to
properly form and optimize its forwarding information base.
1. Introduction
This document covers the measurement of the IP packet forwarding
performance of IP routers on the basis of the routers ability to
properly form and optimize its forwarding information base (FIB). [FIB-
TERM] describes the terminology associated with this document.
This version of the document describes a more general approach to the
determination of router performance than previous versions. As a
result, it is the intent of the authors that this document serves as a
catalyst for further discussions concerning the approach outline in this
Dunn et al. Expires May 2005 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
draft. The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology for
measuring the impact of FIB generation from a given routing information
base (RIB) on the forwarding performance of a router. The objective is
to determine whether a router can maintain performance levels as the RIB
grows in size and complexity.
This document utilizes the methodology described in [METHOD] for
measuring the FIB-dependent throughput, FIB-dependent latency and FIB-
dependent frame loss rate of IP packets as they traverse the router
under test. The forwarding performance of a router should be observed
under different RIB sizes and compositions.
2. Terms Of Reference
This document utilizes the methodologies for packet throughput, latency
and loss measurements described in [METHOD].
Definitions unique to this test methodology are covered in [FIB-TERM].
The application of methodologies described in this document is not
limited to IP forwarding; however, it is beyond the scope of this
document to explicitly describe their application. In this document, use
of the term IP is protocol version independent. Traffic, RIB and FIB
may be IPv4, IPv6 or both.
3. Overview
The methodology described in this document is based on the precept that
the FIB is formed from information in the RIB and, possibly, other
configured variables. The methodology is independent of the particulars
associated with populating the RIB or setting these variables; however,
this SHOULD be done using routing protocols, e.g., OSPF [OSPF]. RIB and
FIB contents MAY be determined either through observing traffic
forwarding or management information base (MIB) queries. For
completeness, this determination SHOULD be made using both. Generation
of the FIB from the RIB based on three major components:
- Interface Identifier - Route Optimization - Routing Policies
The following three sub-sections describe these components and their
effect on FIB generation.
3.1 Interface Identifier
The interface identifier entry in the FIB establishes the physical path
for datagram forwarding. If the interface not active or down, the path
is no longer available and the entry SHOULD be removed from the FIB.
Descriptions of interface identifiers are contained in [MIB-BGP] and
[MIB-OSPF]. 3.2 Route Optimization
Route optimization seeks to minimize the overall effort on the part of
Dunn et al. Expires May 2005 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
the router to forward datagrams. Optimization has three basic
components:
- Route Aggregation - Route Flap Damping - Route Metrics
Route aggregation seeks to minimize the number of entries in the FIB
corresponding to a set of reachable address prefixes. These prefixes
could be contiguous or overlapping. Methods for route aggregation are
described in [IDR].
Route flap damping seeks to minimize unnecessary re-generation of the
FIB based on unstable routing information. Methods for route flap
damping are described in [BGP-FLAP].
Route metrics assign a relative weight or merit to a particular routed
path. Descriptions of these metrics are found in [MIB-BGP] and [MIB-
OSPF].
3.3 Routing Policies
Routing policies are administrative restrictions or requirements on the
FIB. The take two major forms:
- Access Control Lists - Route Filters
Access control lists can be used to explicitly allow or deny access to
physical interfaces of network prefixes. This can be done either on the
basis of individual protocol addresses or entire prefixes.
Route filters are a set of protocol addresses or prefixes against which
a given route will be matched. The resulting action of a match will
depend on the use of the route filter.
4.0 Methodology
The methodologies for determining the effects of the three components of
FIB generation are still under investigation. The authors look to the
BMWG for guidance, suggestions and constructive input.
Dunn et al. Expires May 2005 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
5. Security Considerations
As this document is solely for the purpose of providing performance
methodologies and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
implementation; therefore, there are no security considerations
associated with this document.
6. Informative References
[IPROC] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [FIB-TERM] Trotter, G., " Terminology
for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance", RFC
3222, December, 2001. [METHOD] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999
[OSPF] Moy, J, "OSPF Version 2," RFC 2328, April 1998. [MIB-BGP]
Willis, S., Burrus, J., Chu, J. "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Fourth Version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) using SMIv2," RFC
1657, July 1994. [MIB-OSPF] Baker, F., Colton, R., "OSPF Version 2
Management Information Base," RFC 1850, November 1995. [IDR] Chen, E.,
Stewart, J., "A Framework for Inter-Domain Route Aggregation," RFC 2519,
February 1999. [BGP-FLAP] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., Govindan, R.,
"BGP Route Flap Damping," RFC 2439, November 1998.
7. Acknowledgements
The current authors would like to acknowledge Guy Trotter of Agilent
Technologies for his work on the first edition of this draft. His work
has spurred the current authors to consider a broader set of performance
criteria for FIB generation.
8. Author's Addresses
Jeffrey Dunn SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800 Reston,
VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6959 e-mail: jeffrey.dunn@si-intl.com
Cynthia Martin SI International 12012 Sunset Hills Road Suite 800
Reston, VA 20190-5869 USA Ph: +1 703 234 6962 e-mail: Cynthia.martin@si-
intl.com
9.0 Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any
independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP
78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
Dunn et al. Expires May 2005 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-meth-02.txt October 2004
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification
can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
9.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of
which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE Of THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Dunn et al. Expires May 2005 [Page 5]
