Network Working Group Aamer Akhter
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 2009 Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
November 3, 2008
MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
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 Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2009.
Abstract
This document describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking
of MPLS forwarding devices, limited to various types of packet-
forwarding and delay measurements. It builds upon the tenets set
forth in RFC2544 [RFC2544], RFC1242 [RFC1242] and other IETF
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This
document seeks to extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Document Scope.................................................3
3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements..............................3
4. Test Methodology...............................................3
4.1. Test Considerations..........................................4
4.1.1. IGP Support................................................5
4.1.2. Label Distribution Support.................................5
4.1.3. Frame Sizes................................................5
4.1.4. Time-to-Live (TTL) or Hop Limit............................6
4.1.5. Trial Duration.............................................6
4.1.6. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State..............7
4.1.7. Abbreviations Used.........................................7
5. Reporting Format...............................................7
6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests.............................8
6.1. Throughput..................................................11
6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition......................11
6.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap............................12
6.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition.....................13
6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate).........14
6.2. Latency Measurement.........................................15
6.3. Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)...........................15
6.4. System Recovery.............................................16
6.5. Reset.......................................................17
7. Security Considerations.......................................18
8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
9. Acknowledgement...............................................18
10. References...................................................19
10.1. Normative References.......................................19
10.2. Informative References.....................................19
Author's Addresses...............................................20
Intellectual Property Statement..................................20
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................21
Copyright Statement..............................................21
1. Introduction
Over the past several years MPLS networks have gained greater
popularity. However, there is no standard method to compare and
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
contrast the varying implementations and their strong and weak
points. This document proposes a methodology using common criteria
for the comparison of various implementations of basic MPLS
forwarding devices.
The terms used in this document remain consistent with those defined
in "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
RFC1242 [RFC1242]. This terminology SHOULD be consulted before using
or applying the recommendations of this document.
2. Document Scope
The purpose of this draft is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The scope of this
benchmarking will be limited to various types of packet-forwarding
and delay measurements in a laboratory setting. It builds upon the
tenets set forth in RFC2544 [RFC2544], RFC1242 [RFC1242] and other
IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.
MPLS [RFC3031] is a foundation enabling technology for other more
advanced technologies such as Layer 3 MPLS-VPNs, Layer 2 MPLS-VPNs,
and MPLS Traffic Engineering. This document focuses on MPLS
forwarding characterization. This document is not a replacement for,
but a complement to, RFC 2544.
3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make
the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While
this document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards
track document.
4. Test Methodology
The set of methodologies described in this document will use the
topologies described in this section. An effort has been made to
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
exclude superfluous equipment needs such that each test can be
carried out with the minimum number of requirements.
Figure 1 illustrates the sample topology in which the DUT is
connected to the test ports on the test tool.
+-----------------+
+---------+ | | +---------+
| Test | | | | Test |
| Port A1 +-----+ DA1 DB1 -----+ Port B1 |
+---------+ | | +---------+
+---------+ | DUT | +---------+
| Test | | | | Test |
| Port A2 +-----+ DA2 DB2 +-----+ Port B2 |
+---------+ | | +---------+
... | | ...
+---------+ | | +---------+
| Test | +-----------------+ | Test |
| Port Ap | | Port Bp |
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 1 Topology #1 for MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking
p = number of ports; determined by the maximum unidirectional
forwarding throughput of the DUT and the load capacity of the media
between the Test Ports and DUT.
For example, if the DUT's forwarding throughput is 100 frames per
second (fps), and the media capacity is 50 fps, then p = 2.
The exact throughput is a measured quantity obtained through
testing. Throughput may vary depending on the number of ports used,
and other factors. The number of ports used (p) SHOULD be reported
for both Tx and Rx sides of DUT. Please see Test Setup in section 6.
4.1. Test Considerations
This methodology assumes a full-duplex uniform medium topology. The
medium used MUST be reported in each test result. Issues regarding
mixed transmission media, speed mismatches, media header differences
etc, are not under consideration. Traffic-affecting features such as
Flow control, QoS, Graceful Restart etc. MUST be disabled, unless
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
explicitly requested in the test case. Additionally, any non-
essential traffic MUST also be avoided.
4.1.1. IGP Support
It is highly RECOMMENDED that all of the interfaces (A1, DA1, DB1,
A2..) on DUT and test tool support an IGP such as IS-IS, OSPF,
EIGRP, RIP etc. Furthermore, there are testing considerations in
this document that the device is able to provide a stable control-
plane during heavy forwarding workloads. The route distribution
method used (OSPF, IS-IS, EIGRP, RIP etc.) MUST be reported.
4.1.2. Label Distribution Support
The DUT and test tool must support at least one protocol for
exchanging MPLS labels. The DUT and test tool MUST be capable of
learning and advertising MPLS label bindings via the chosen
protocol(s), and use them during packet forwarding all the time
(including when the label bindings change). The most commonly used
protocols are Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036], Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC5151] and
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC3107].
All of the interfaces connected to the DUT such as A1, DA1, DB1, A2
etc., SHOULD support LDP, RSVP-TE, and BGP for IPv4 or IPv6
Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs).
This document discourages the use of static label to establish the
MPLS label switched paths, since it is not commonly used in the
production networks.
4.1.3. Frame Sizes
Each test SHOULD be run with different (layer 2) frame sizes in
different trials. The recommended sizes for IPv4 are 64, 128, 256,
512, 1024, 1280 and 1518. Recommended sizes for other media can be
found in RFC 2544 and IPv6 Benchmarking [RFC5180]. Frame sizes MUST
be based on the pre-MPLS shim version of the frame.
In addition to the individual frame size trials, results MAY also be
collected with multiple simultaneous frame sizes (sometimes referred
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
to as an IMIX to simulate real network traffic according to the
frame size ordering and usage). There is no standard for mixtures of
frame sizes, and the results are subject to wide interpretation. See
section 18 of RFC 2544.
When running trials using multiple simultaneous frame sizes, the DUT
configuration MUST remain the same.
4.1.4. Time-to-Live (TTL) or Hop Limit
The MPLS TTL or IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop Limit (depending on which
portion of the frame the DUT is basing the forwarding behavior) MUST
be large enough to traverse the DUT.
If TTL/Hop Limit Decrement is a configurable option on the DUT, the
setting SHOULD be reported.
4.1.5. Trial Duration
Unless otherwise specified, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
no less than 30 seconds when static routing is in place, and no less
than 200 seconds when a dynamic routing protocol and LDP (default
LDP holddown timer is 180 seconds) are being used.
The longer trial time used for dynamic routing protocols is to
verify that the DUT is able to maintain a stable control plane when
the data-forwarding plane is under stress.
4.1.5.1. Traffic Verification
In all cases, sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
received on the wrong port, correct port or not received at all.
Specifically, traffic loss (also referred to as frame loss) is
defined as the traffic (i.e. one or more frames) not received where
expected (i.e. received on incorrect port, or received with
incorrect layer2 or above header information etc.). In addition,
presence or absence of MPLS header, ethertype (0x8847 vs. 0x0800),
checksum, frame sequencing and correct MPLS TTL decrementing, MUST
be verified in the received frame.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Many test tools may, by default, only verify that they have received
the embedded signature on the receive side. However, for MPLS header
presence verification, some tests will require the MPLS header to be
imposed while others will require a swap or disposition. Hence, this
document requires the test tool to verify the MPLS stack depth. An
even greater level of verification would be to check if the correct
label was imposed, but that is out of scope for these tests.
4.1.6. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State
If the test or media is making use of a dynamic protocol (eg ARP,
OSPF, LDP), all state for the protocols should be pre-established
before the start of the trial.
4.1.7. Abbreviations Used
Please refer to Figure 1, "Port based Remote Network" for a topology
view of the network. The following abbreviations are used in this
document -
M := Module Side (could be A or B)
P := port number
RN := Remote Network (can also be thought of as a network that is
reachable via Mp).
Y := number of network. (i.e. the first network reachable via B1
would be called B1RN1 and the 5th network would be called B1RN5)
5. Reporting Format
For each test case, it is RECOMMENDED that the following variables
be reported in addition to the specific parameters requested by the
test case:
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Parameter Units or Examples
Internet Protocol IPv4, IPv6, Dual-Stack
Label Distribution Protocol LDP, RSVP-TE, BGP (or
combinations)
MPLS Forwarding Operation Imposition, Swap,
Disposition
IGP ISIS, OSPF, EIGRP, RIP,
static.
Throughput Frames per second
Interface Type GigE, POS, ATM etc
Interface Speed 1 gbps, 100 Mbps, etc
Interface Encapsulation VLAN, PPP, HDLC
Frame Size Bytes
Number of A and B 1A, 2B
interfaces (see Figure 1)
The individual test cases may have additional reporting requirements
that may refer to other RFCs.
6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests
MPLS is a different forwarding paradigm from IP. Unlike IP packet
and IP forwarding, an MPLS packet may contain more than one MPLS
header and may go through one of three forwarding operations -
imposition, swap and disposition. Such characteristics desire
further granularity in MPLS forwarding benchmarking than those
described in RFC2544. Thus the benchmarking includes, but is not
limited to:
1. Throughput
2. Latency
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
3. Frame Loss rate
4. System Recovery
5. Reset
6. MPLS EXP field Operations (including explicit-null cases)
7. Negative Scenarios (TTL expiry, etc)
8. Multicast
This document focuses on the first five categories, inline with the
spirit of RFC2544. All the benchmarking test cases described in this
document are expected to, at a minimum, follow the 'Test Setup' and
'Test Procedure' below -
Test Setup
Referring to Figure 1, a single A and B interface SHOULD be used
(p = 1 SHOULD be used). However, if the forwarding throughput of
the DUT is more than that of the media rate of a single interface,
then additional A and B interfaces MUST be enabled so as to exceed
the DUT's forwarding throughput. In such case, the tool traffic
should use IP addresses assigned to BpRN1 and BpAN as the IP
destinations and conform to section 16 of RFC 2544.
Test Procedure (Refer to section 26 of RFC 2544)
Send traffic from port(s) Ap towards DUT at a constant load
towards IP prefixes (BpRN1 addresses) advertised by the tool on
the receive ports, for a fixed time interval.
If any frame loss is detected, a new iteration is needed where the
offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An
iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum
offered frame rate with a zero frame loss.
Each iteration should involve varying the offered load of the
traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number
of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size etc) constant,
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
until the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are
dropped is determined.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.1. Throughput
This section contains the description of the tests that are related
to the characterization of DUT's MPLS traffic forwarding.
6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition
Objective
To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label
imposition (i.e. IP to MPLS).
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool should
advertise the IP prefix(es) i.e. RNx(using a routing protocol as
per section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label
distribution protocol as per section 1.2) on its receive ports Bp
to DUT. The test tool may learn these IP prefixes on its transmit
ports Ap from DUT.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain a non-reserved MPLS
label value as the outgoing label for the learned prefix,
resulting in IP-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The test tool must
receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT) with the same
label values that are advertised.
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool MUST send unlabeled IP packets on transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to above IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
include: offered load and measured throughput.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap
Objective
To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label
swapping (i.e. MPLS to MPLS).
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
set up to advertise IP prefix (using a routing protocol as per
section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label distribution
protocol as per section 1.2) on the receive ports Bp, and learn
the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on the transmit
ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label
values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on
ports Ap.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain non-reserved MPLS
label values as the outgoing and incoming labels for the learned
prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The test
tool must receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT). The
received MPLS packets must contain the same number of MPLS headers
as those of transmitted MPLS Packets.
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive MPLS packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition
Objective
To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label
disposition (i.e. MPLS to IP) using "Untagged" outgoing label.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
set up to advertise the IP prefix(es) (using a routing protocol as
per section 1.1) without any MPLS label on the receive ports Bp,
and learn the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on
the transmit ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned
MPLS label values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets
transmitted on ports Ap.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an untagged outgoing
label for the learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding
operation. The test tool must receive IP packets on receive ports
Bp (from DUT).
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate)
Objective
To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label
disposition (i.e. MPLS to IP) using "Aggregate" outgoing label.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the DUT should be
provisioned such that it allocates an aggregate outgoing label to
a prefix (where the prefix may be a 'BGP aggregated prefix' , 'BGP
VPN connected prefix' or an IGP aggregation that results in an
aggregate label, etc. and must include the addresses belonging to
the DUT receive ports Bp).
The DUT must advertise the IP prefix(es) along with the MPLS
label(s) via a label distribution protocol to the test tool on
tool transmit ports Ap.
The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label values and
learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on ports Ap.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an aggregate outgoing
label and IP forwarding table must contain a valid entry for the
learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding operation (i.e.
MPLS header removal followed by IP lookup). The test tool must
receive IP packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT).
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.2. Latency Measurement
This measures the time taken by the DUT to forward the MPLS packet
during various MPLS switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS or MPLS-to-
MPLS or MPLS-to-IP involving one or more MPLS headers.
Objective
To obtain the maximum latency induced by the DUT during MPLS
packet forwarding for each of three forwarding operations.
Test Setup
Follow the Test Setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) ), and 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP)
one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to section 26.2 in RFC2544 in addition to following
the associated procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation in
accord with the Test Setup described earlier -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
6.3. Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)
This measures the percentage of MPLS frames that were not forwarded
during various switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS (imposition) or
MPLS-to-IP (swap) or MPLS-IP (disposition) by the DUT under
overloaded state.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.3 for more details.
Objective
To obtain the frame loss rate, as defined in RFC1242, for each of
three MPLS forwarding operations of a DUT, throughout the range of
input data rates and frame sizes.
Test Setup
Follow the Test Setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS), and 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP) and
procedure one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to section 26.3 of RFC 2544 RFC2544 and follow the
associated procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one
in accord with the Test Setup described earlier -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
6.4. System Recovery
Objective
To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an overload
condition.
Test Setup
Follow the Test Setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544 and follow the associated procedure for
each MPLS forwarding operation in the referenced sections one-by-
one in accord with the Test Setup described earlier -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5.
6.5. Reset
Objective
To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a device or
software reset.
Test Setup
Follow the Test Setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
one by one.
For this test, all graceful-restart features MUST be disabled.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.5. Examples of hardware and
software resets are:
Hardware reset - forwarding module resetting (e.g. OIR).
Software reset - reset initiated through a CLI (e.g. reload).
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Additionally, follow the specific section for procedure (and test
Setup) for each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544 and the parameters of section 5 including the
specific kind of reset performed.
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities, as described in this memo, are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above.
The benchmarking network topology will be 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.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no considerations for IANA at this time.
9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Mo Khalid, who motivated us to write
this document. We would like to thank Chip Popoviciu, Jay Karthik,
Rajiv Pap, Samir Vapiwala, Silvija Andrijic Dry, Scott Bradner, Al
Morton and Bill Cerveny for their careful review and suggestions.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC3031] Rosen et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999.
[RFC3107] Rosen, E. and Rekhter, Y., "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, January 2001.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., et al, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
[RFC5151] Farrel, et al, "Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering --Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 5151, Feb 2008.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Author's Addresses
Aamer Akhter
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27709
USA
Email: aakhter@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27709
USA
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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 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.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2008
Disclaimer of Validity
Copyright Statement
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, THE
IETF TRUST 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.
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Akhter & Asati Expires March, 2009 [Page 21]
