Network Working Group R. Papneja
Internet Draft Isocore
Intended status: Informational S.Vapiwala
Expires: January 2008 J.Karthik
Cisco Systems
S. Poretsky
Reef Point
S. Rao
Qwest Communications
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
July 6, 2007
Methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection mechanisms
<draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.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.
This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft.
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 January 6, .
Copyright Notice
Papneja,Vapiwala,Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 1]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection
mechanisms for link and node protection as defined in [MPLS-FRR-EXT].
The benchmarking and terminology [TERM-ID] are to be used for
benchmarking MPLS based protection mechanisms [MPLS-FRR-EXT]. This
document provides test methodologies and test-bed setup for measuring
failover times while considering all dependencies that might impact
faster recovery of real time services riding on MPLS based primary
tunnel. The terms used in the procedures included in this document are
defined in [TERM-ID].
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 [RFC-WORDS].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Existing definitions...........................................6
3. Test Considerations............................................6
3.1. Failover Events...........................................6
3.2. Failure Detection [TERM-ID]...............................7
3.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection Benchmarking......8
3.4. LSP and Route Scaling.....................................8
3.5. Selection of IGP..........................................9
3.6. Reversion [TERM-ID].......................................9
3.7. Traffic generation........................................9
3.8. Motivation for topologies................................10
4. Test Setup....................................................10
4.1. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop
backup........................................................11
TE tunnels....................................................11
4.2. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................11
4.3. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................12
4.4. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................13
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 2]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
4.5. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................14
4.6. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................15
4.7. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................16
4.8. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop
backup TE tunnels.............................................16
5. Test Methodology..............................................17
5.1. Headend as PLR with link failure.........................18
5.2. Mid-Point as PLR with link failure.......................19
5.3. Headend as PLR with Node failure.........................20
5.4. Mid-Point as PLR with Node failure.......................21
5.5. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Test Cases...............23
5.5.1. PLR as Headend......................................23
5.5.2. PLR as Mid-point....................................24
6. Reporting Format..............................................25
7. IANA Considerations...........................................26
This document requires no IANA considerations....................26
8. Security Considerations.......................................27
9. Acknowledgements..............................................27
10. References...................................................28
10.1. Normative References....................................28
10.2. Informative References..................................28
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................28
Intellectual Property Statement..................................30
Appendix A: Fast Reroute Scalability Table.......................31
1. Introduction
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS based
protection mechanisms. The new terminology that it introduces is defined
in [TERM-ID].
MPLS based protection mechanisms provide faster recovery of real time
services in case of an unplanned link or node failure in the network
core, where MPLS is used as a signaling protocol to setup point-to-point
traffic engineered tunnels. MPLS based protection mechanisms improve
service availability by minimizing the duration of the most common
failures. There are generally two factors impacting service
availability. One is the frequency and the other is the duration of the
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 3]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
failure. Unexpected correlated failures are less common. Correlated
failures mean co-occurrence of two or more failures simultaneously.
These failures are often observed when two or more logical resources
(for e.g. layer-2 links), relying on a common physical resource (for
e.g. common transport) fail. Common transport may include TDM and WDM
links providing multiplexing at layer-2 and layer-1. Within the context
of MPLS protection mechanisms, Shared Risk Link Groups [MPLS-FRR-EXT]
encompass correlations failures.
Not all correlated failures can be anticipated in advance of their
occurrence. Failures due to natural disasters or planned failures are
the most notable causes. Due to the frequent occurrences of such
failures, it is necessary that implementations can handle these faults
gracefully, and recover the services affected by failures very quickly.
Some routers recover faster as compared to the others, hence
benchmarking this type of failures become very useful. Benchmarking of
unexpected correlated failures should include measurement of
restoration with and without the availability of IP fallback. This
document provides detailed test cases focusing on benchmarking MPLS
protection mechanisms. Benchmarking of unexpected correlated failures
is currently out of scope of this document.
A link or a node failure could occur either at the head-end or at the
mid point node of a primary tunnel. The backup tunnel could offer either
link or node protection following a failure along the path of the
primary tunnel. The time lapsed in transitioning primary tunnel traffic
to the backup tunnel is a key measurement that ensures the service level
agreements. Failover time depends upon many factors such as the number
of prefixes bound to a tunnel, services (such as IGP, BGP, Layer 3/
Layer 2 VPNs) that are bound to the tunnel, number of primary tunnels
affected by the failure event, number of primary tunnels protected by
backup, the type of failure and the physical media on which the failover
occurs. This document describes all different topologies and scenarios
that should be considered to effectively benchmark MPLS protection
mechanisms and failover times. Different failure scenarios and scaling
considerations are also provided in this document. In addition the
document provides a reporting format for the observed results.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 4]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
To benchmark the failover time, data plane traffic is used as defined in
[IGP-METH]. Traffic loss is the key component in a black-box type test
and is used to measure convergence.
All benchmarking test cases defined in this document apply to both
facility backup and local protection enabled in detour mode. The test
cases cover all possible failure scenarios and the associated procedures
benchmark the ability of the DUT to perform recovery from failures
within target failover time.
Figure 1 represents the basic reference test bed and is applicable to
all the test cases defined in this document. TG & TA represents Traffic
Generator & Analyzer respectively. A tester is connected to the DUT and
it sends and receives IP traffic along with the working Path, run
protocol emulations simulating real world peering scenarios.
---------------------------
| ------------|---------------
| | | |
| | | |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
TG-| R1 |-----| R2 |----| R3 | | R4 | | R5 |-TA
| |-----| |----| |----| |---| |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
| | | |
| | | |
| -------- | |
---------| R6 |-------- |
| |--------------------
--------
Fig.1: Fast Reroute Topology.
The tester MUST record the number of lost, duplicate, and reordered
packets. It should further record arrival and departure times so that
Failover Time, Additive Latency, and Reversion Time can be measured.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 5]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
The tester may be a single device or a test system emulating all the
different roles along a primary or backup path.
2. Existing definitions
For the sake of clarity and continuity this RFC adopts the template
for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242. Definitions are
indexed and grouped together in sections for ease of reference.
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.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the commonly used MPLS
terminology, some of which is defined in [MPLS-FRR-EXT].
3. Test Considerations
This section discusses the fundamentals of MPLS Protection testing:
-The types of network events that causes failover
-Indications for failover
-the use of data traffic
-Traffic generation
-LSP Scaling
-Reversion of LSP
-IGP Selection
3.1. Failover Events
The failover to the backup tunnel is primarily triggered by either a
link or node failures observed downstream of the Point of Local
repair (PLR). Some of these failure events are listed below.
Link failure events
- Interface Shutdown on PLR side with POS Alarm
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 6]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
- Interface Shutdown on remote side with POS Alarm
- Interface Shutdown on PLR side with RSVP hello
- Interface Shutdown on remote side with RSVP hello
- Interface Shutdown on PLR side with BFD
- Interface Shutdown on remote side with BFD
- Fiber Pull on the PLR side (Both TX & RX or just the Tx)
- Fiber Pull on the remote side (Both TX & RX or just the Rx)
- Online insertion and removal (OIR) on PLR side
- OIR on remote side
- Sub-interface failure (e.g. shutting down of a VLAN)
- Parent interface shutdown (an interface bearing multiple sub-
interfaces
Node failure events
A System reload is initiated either by a graceful shutdown or by a
power failure. A system crash is referred to as a software failure or
an assert.
- Reload protected Node, when RSVP Hello is enabled
- Crash Protected Node, when RSVP Hello is enable
- Reload Protected Node, when BFD is enable
- Crash Protected Node, when BFD is enable
3.2. Failure Detection [TERM-ID]
Local failures can be detected via SONET/SDH failure with directly
connected LSR. Failure indication may vary with the type of alarm -
LOS, AIS, or RDI. Failures on Ethernet links such as Gigabit Ethernet
rely upon Layer 3 signaling indication for failure.
Different MPLS protection mechanisms and different implementations
use different failure detection techniques such as RSVP hellos, BFD
etc. Ethernet technologies such as Gigabit Ethernet rely upon layer 3
failure indication mechanisms since there is no Layer 2 failure
indication mechanism. The failure detection time may not always be
negligible and it could impact the overall failover time.
The test procedures in this document can be used for a local failure
or remote failure scenarios for comprehensive benchmarking and to
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 7]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
evaluate failover performance independent of the failure detection
techniques.
3.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection Benchmarking
Currently end customers use packet loss as a key metric for failover
time. Packet loss is an externally observable event and has direct
impact on customers' applications. MPLS protection mechanism is
expected to minimize the packet loss in the event of a failure. For
this reason it is important to develop a standard router benchmarking
methodology for measuring MPLS protection that uses packet loss as a
metric. At a known rate of forwarding, packet loss can be measured
and the Failover time can be determined. Measurement of control plane
signaling to establish backup paths is not enough to verify failover.
Failover is best determined when packets are actually traversing the
backup path.
An additional benefit of using packet loss for calculation of
Failover time is that it allows use of a black-box tests environment.
Data traffic is offered at line-rate to the device under test (DUT),
and an emulated network failure event is forced to occur, and packet
loss is externally measured to calculate the convergence time. This
setup is independent of the DUT architecture.
In addition, this methodology considers the packets in error and
duplicate packets that could have been generated during the failover
process. In scenarios, where separate measurement of packets in error
and duplicate packets is difficult to obtain, these packets should be
attributed to lost packets.
3.4. LSP and Route Scaling
Failover time performance may vary with the number of established
primary and backup tunnels (LSP) and installed routes. However the
procedure outlined here should be used for any number of LSPs (L) and
number of routes protected by PLR(R). Number of L and R must be
recorded.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 8]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
3.5. Selection of IGP
The underlying IGP could be ISIS-TE or OSPF-TE for the methodology
proposed here.
3.6. Reversion [TERM-ID]
Fast Reroute provides a method to return or restore a backup path to
original primary LSP upon recovery from the failure. This is referred
to as Reversion, which can be implemented as Global Reversion or
Local Reversion. In all test cases listed here Reversion should not
produce any packet loss, out of order or duplicate packets. Each of
the test cases in this methodology document provides a check to
confirm that there is no packet loss.
3.7. Traffic generation
It is suggested that there be one or more traffic streams as long as
there is a steady and constant rate of flow for all the streams. In
order to monitor the DUT performance for recovery times a set of
route prefixes should be advertised before traffic is sent. The
traffic should be configured towards these routes.
A typical example would be configuring the traffic generator to send
the traffic to the first, middle and last of the advertised routes.
(First, middle and last could be decided by the numerically smallest,
median and the largest respectively of the advertised prefix).
Generating traffic to all of the prefixes reachable by the protected
tunnel (probably in a Round-Robin fashion, where the traffic is
destined to all the prefixes but one prefix at a time in a cyclic
manner) is not recommended. The reason why traffic generation is not
recommended in a Round-Robin fashion to all the prefixes, one at a
time is that if there are many prefixes reachable through the LSP the
time interval between 2 packets destined to one prefix may be
significantly high and may be comparable with the failover time being
measured which does not aid in getting an accurate failover
measurement.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 9]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
3.8. Motivation for topologies
Given that the label stack is dependent of the following 3 entities
it is recommended that the benchmarking of failover time be performed
on all the 8 topologies provided in section 4
- Type of protection (Link Vs Node)
- # of remaining hops of the primary tunnel from the PLR
- # of remaining hops of the backup tunnel from the PLR
4. Test Setup
Topologies to be used for benchmarking the failover time:
This section proposes a set of topologies that covers all the
scenarios for local protection. All of these 8 topologies shown
(figure 2- figure 9) can be mapped to the reference topology shown in
figure 1. Topologies provided in sections 4.1 to 4.8 refer to test-
bed required to benchmark failover time when DUT is configured as a
PLR in either head-end or midpoint role. The labels stack provided
with each topology is at the PLR.
The label stacks shown below each figure in section 4.1 to 4.9
considers enabling of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP).
Figures 2-9 uses the following convention:
a) HE is Head-End
b) TE is Tail-End
c) MID is Mid point
d) MP is Merge Point
e) PLR is Point of Local Repair
f) PRI is Primary
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 10]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
g) BKP denotes Backup Node
4.1. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup
TE tunnels
------- -------- PRI --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 |
TG-| HE |--| MID |----| TE |-TA
| | | PLR |----| |
------- -------- BKP --------
Figure 2: Represents the setup for section 4.1
Traffic No of Labels No of labels after
before failure failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 0 0
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 1 1
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 2 2
Mid-point LSPs 0 0
4.2. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
tunnels
------- -------- --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 |
TG-| HE | | MID |PRI | TE |-TA
| |----| PLR |----| |
------- -------- --------
|BKP |
| -------- |
| | R6 | |
|----| BKP |----|
| MID |
--------
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 11]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Figure 3: Representing setup for section 4.2
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 0 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 1 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 2 3
Mid-point LSPs 0 1
4.3. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop backup TE
tunnels
-------- -------- -------- --------
| R1 | | R2 |PRI | R3 |PRI | R4 |
TG-| HE |----| MID |----| MID |------| TE |-TA
| | | PLR |----| | | |
-------- -------- BKP -------- --------
Figure 4: Representing setup for section 4.3
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Mid-point LSPs 1 1
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 12]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
4.4. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop backup TE
tunnels
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 13]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
-------- -------- PRI -------- PRI --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 | | R4 |
TG-| HE |----| MID |----| MID |------| TE |-TA
| | | PLR | | | | |
-------- -------- -------- --------
BKP| |
| -------- |
| | R6 | |
---| BKP |-
| MID |
--------
Figure 5: Representing the setup for section 4.4
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 4
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 4
Mid-point LSPs 1 2
4.5. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
tunnels
-------- -------- -------- --------
| R1 | | R2 |PRI | R3 | PRI | R4 |
TG-| HE |----| MID |----| MID |------| TE |-TA
| | | PLR | | | | |
-------- -------- -------- --------
|BKP |
-----------------------------
Figure 6: Representing the setup for section 4.5
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 14]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 0
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 2
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 1
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 2
Mid-point LSPs 1 0
4.6. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
tunnels
-------- -------- -------- --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 | | R4 |
TG-| HE | | MID |PRI | MID |PRI | TE |-TA
| |----| PLR |----| |----| |
-------- -------- -------- --------
| |
BKP| -------- |
| | R6 | |
---------| BKP |---------
| MID |
--------
Figure 7: Representing setup for section 4.6
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 15]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Mid-point LSPs 1 1
4.7. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
tunnels
-------- -------- PRI -------- PRI -------- PRI --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 | | R4 | | R5 |
TG-| HE |--| MID |---| MID |---| MP |---| TE |-TA
| | | PLR | | | | | | |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
BKP| |
--------------------------
Figure 8: Representing setup for section 4.7
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Mid-point LSPs 1 1
4.8. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup
TE tunnels
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 16]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
| R1 | | R2 | | R3 | | R4 | | R5 |
TG-| HE | | MID |PRI| MID |PRI| MP |PRI| TE |-TA
| |-- | PLR |---| |---| |---| |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
BKP| |
| -------- |
| | R6 | |
---------| BKP |-------
| MID |
--------
Figure 9: Representing setup for section 4.8
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IP TRAFFIC (P-P) 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 4
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 4
Mid-point LSPs 1 2
5. Test Methodology
The procedure described in this section can be applied to all the 8
base test cases and the associated topologies. The backup as well as
the primary tunnel are configured to be alike in terms of bandwidth
usage. In order to benchmark failover with all possible label stack
depth applicable as seen with current deployments, it is suggested
that the methodology includes all the scenarios listed here
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 17]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
5.1. Headend as PLR with link failure
Objective
To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Link failure events
described in section 3.1 experienced by the DUT which is the point
of local repair (PLR).
Test Setup
- select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
- select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
Generator/analyzer. (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
A simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
a link connected to the traffic analyzer).
Test Configuration
1. Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on
R2 as required by the topology selected.
2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
Appendix A) by the tail end.
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R2 required by the topology
selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the selected
topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary is
protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 18]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
8. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section
3.1
9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
11. Failover time is calculated as defined in section 6,
Reporting format.
12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when
protected interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due
to make before break or reversion.
13. Enable protected interface that was down (Node in the case
of NNHOP)
14. Verify head-end signals new LSP and protection should be in
place again
5.2. Mid-Point as PLR with link failure
Objective
To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Link failure events
described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test which
is the point of local repair (PLR).
Test Setup
- select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
- select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point lsps
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
generator.
Test Configuration
1. Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on
R2 as required by the topology selected
2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
Appendix A) by the tail end.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 19]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R1 required by the topology
selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the selected
topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary is
protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
8. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section
3.1
9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
Reporting format.
12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when
protected interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due
to make before break or reversion
13. Enable protected interface that was down (Node in the case
of NNHOP)
14. Verify head-end signals new LSP and protection should be in
place again
5.3. Headend as PLR with Node failure
Objective
To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test which
is the point of local repair (PLR).
Test Setup
- select any one topology from section 4.5 to 4.8
- select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 20]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
generator.
Test Configuration
1. Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on
R2 as required by the topology selected
2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
Appendix A) by the tail end.
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R2 required by the topology
selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the selected
topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary is
protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
8. Trigger any choice of Node failure as describe in section
3.1
9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
Reporting format.
12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when
protected interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due
to make before break or reversion
13. Boot protected Node that was down.
14. Verify head-end signals new LSP and protection should be in
place again
5.4. Mid-Point as PLR with Node failure
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 21]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Objective
To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test which
is the point of local repair (PLR).
Test Setup
- select any one topology from section 4.5 to 4.8
- select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point lsps
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
generator.
Test Configuration
1. Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on
R2 as required by the topology selected
2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
Appendix A) by the tail end.
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R1 required by the topology
selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the selected
topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary is
protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
8. Trigger any choice of Node failure as describe in section
3.1
9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
Reporting format.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 22]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when
protected interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due
to make before break or reversion
13. Boot protected Node that was down
14. Verify head-end signals new LSP and protection should be in
place again
5.5. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Test Cases
For the following MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Benchmarking
cases, Test the maximum PPS rate allowed by given hardware
5.5.1. PLR as Headend
Objective
To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as headend)
over primary FRR LSP and backup lsp.
Test Setup
- select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
- select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
Generator/analyzer. (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
A simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
a link connected to the traffic analyzer).
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R2 required by the
topology selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the
selected topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary
is protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 23]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
6. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that
the device under test supports over the primary LSP
7. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over primary LSP
8. Stop traffic stream
9. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in
section 3.1
10. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
11. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that
the device under test supports over the primary LSP
12. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over backup LSP
5.5.2. PLR as Mid-point
To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as mid-point)
over primary FRR LSP and backup lsp.
Test Setup
- select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
- select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point lsps
- The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
generator.
Procedure
1. Establish the primary lsp on R1 required by the
topology selected
2. Establish the backup lsp on R2 required by the
selected topology
3. Verify primary and backup lsps are up and that primary
is protected
4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready
5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 24]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
6. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that
the device under test supports over the primary LSP
7. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over primary LSP
8. Stop traffic stream
9. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in
section 3.1
10. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to
backup tunnels
11. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that
the device under test supports over the backup LSP
12. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over backup LSP
6. Reporting Format
For each test, it is recommended that the results be reported in the
following format.
Parameter Units
IGP used for the test ISIS-TE/ OSPF-TE
Interface types Gige,POS,ATM,VLAN etc.
Packet Sizes offered to the DUT Bytes
Forwarding rate number of packets
IGP routes advertised number of IGP routes
RSVP hello timers configured (if any) milliseconds
Number of FRR tunnels configured number of tunnels
Number of VPN routes in head-end number of VPN routes
Number of VC tunnels number of VC tunnels
Number of BGP routes number of BGP routes
Number of mid-point tunnels number of tunnels
Number of Prefixes protected by Primary number of prefixes
Number of LSPs being protected number of LSPs
Topology being used Section number
Failure Event Event type
Benchmarks
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 25]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Minimum failover time milliseconds
Mean failover time milliseconds
Maximum failover time milliseconds
Minimum reversion time milliseconds
Mean reversion time milliseconds
Maximum reversion time milliseconds
Failover time suggested above is calculated using one of the
following 3 methods
1. Packet-Based Loss method (PBLM): (Number of packets
dropped/packets per second * 1000) milliseconds. This method
could also be referred as Rate Derived method.
2. Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM): This method relies on the
ability of the Traffic generators to provide statistics which
reveal the duration of failure in milliseconds based on when the
packet loss occurred (interval between non-zero packet loss and
zero loss).
3. Timestamp Based Method (TBM): This method of failover
calculation is based on the timestamp that gets transmitted as
payload in the packets originated by the generator. The Traffic
Analyzer records the timestamp of the last packet received
before the failover event and the first packet after the
failover and derives the time based on the difference between
these 2 timestamps. Note: The payload could also contain
sequence numbers for out-of-order packet calculation and
duplicate packets.
Note: If the primary is configured to be dynamic, and if the primary
is to reroute, make before break should occur from the backup that is
in use to a new alternate primary. If there is any packet loss seen,
it should be added to failover time.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 26]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
8. 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.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
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 in
production networks.
The isolated nature of the benchmarking environments and the fact
that no special features or capabilities, other than those used in
operational networks, are enabled on the DUT/SUT requires no
security considerations specific to the benchmarking process.
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jean Philip Vasseur for his invaluable input
to the document and Curtis Villamizar his contribution in suggesting
text on definition and need for benchmarking Correlated failures.
Additionally we would like to thank Arun Gandhi, Amrit Hanspal, Karu
Ratnam and for their input to the document.
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 27]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[MPLS-FRR-EXT] Pan, P., Atlas, A., Swallow, G., "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC-WORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[TERM-ID] Poretsky S., Papneja R., Karthik J., Vapiwala S.,
"Benchmarking Terminology for Protection
Performance", draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-
02.txt, work in progress.
[MPLS-FRR-EXT] Pan P., Swollow G., Atlas A., "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels”, RFC 4090.
[IGP-METH] S. Poretsky, B. Imhoff, "Benchmarking Methodology
for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence, "draft-ietf-
bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-12.txt”, work in
progress.
11. Authors' Addresses
Rajiv Papneja
Isocore
12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, STE 100
Reston, VA 20190
USA
Phone: +1 703 860 9273
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 28]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
Email: rpapneja@isocore.com
Samir Vapiwala
Cisco System
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1484
Email: svapiwal@cisco.com
Jay Karthik
Cisco System
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 0533
Email: jkarthik@cisco.com
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Shankar Rao
Qwest Communications,
950 17th Street
Suite 1900
Qwest Communications
Denver, CO 80210
USA
Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2 av Pierre Marzin
22300 Lannion
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 29]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
France
Phone: 00 33 2 96 05 30 20
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Disclaimer
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.
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
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 30]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
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
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Appendix A: Fast Reroute Scalability Table
This section provides the recommended numbers for evaluating the
scalability of fast reroute implementations. It also recommends the
typical numbers for IGP/VPNv4 Prefixes, LSP Tunnels and VC entries.
Based on the features supported by the device under test, appropriate
scaling limits can be used for the test bed.
A 1. FRR IGP Table
No of Headend IGP Prefixes
TE LSPs
1 100
1 500
1 1000
1 2000
1 5000
2(Load Balance) 100
2(Load Balance) 500
2(Load Balance) 1000
2(Load Balance) 2000
2(Load Balance) 5000
100 100
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 31]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
500 500
1000 1000
2000 2000
A 2. FRR VPN Table
No of Headend VPNv4 Prefixes
TE LSPs
1 100
1 500
1 1000
1 2000
1 5000
1 10000
1 20000
1 Max
2(Load Balance) 100
2(Load Balance) 500
2(Load Balance) 1000
2(Load Balance) 2000
2(Load Balance) 5000
2(Load Balance) 10000
2(Load Balance) 20000
2(Load Balance) Max
A 3. FRR Mid-Point LSP Table
No of Mid-point TE LSPs could be configured at the following
recommended levels
100
500
1000
2000
Max supported number
A 4. FRR VC Table
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 32]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
Internet-Draft Methodology for benchmarking MPLS July 2007
Protection Mechanisms
No of Headend VC entries
TE LSPs
1 100
1 500
1 1000
1 2000
1 Max
100 100
500 500
1000 1000
2000 2000
Appendix B: Abbreviations
BFD - Bidirectional Fault Detection
BGP - Border Gateway protocol
CE - Customer Edge
DUT - Device Under Test
FRR - Fast Reroute
IGP - Interior Gateway Protocol
IP - Internet Protocol
LSP - Label Switched Path
MP - Merge Point
MPLS - Multi Protocol Label Switching
N-Nhop - Next - Next Hop
Nhop - Next Hop
OIR - Online Insertion and Removal
P - Provider
PE - Provider Edge
PHP - Penultimate Hop Popping
PLR - Point of Local Repair
RSVP - Resource reSerVation Protocol
SRLG - Shared Risk Link Group
TA - Traffic Analyzer
TE - Traffic Engineering
TG - Traffic Generator
VC - Virtual Circuit
VPN - Virtual Private Network
Papneja, Vapiwala, Karthik, Expires January 6, 2008 [Page 33]
Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux
