Internet Engineering Task Force INTERNET-DRAFT Scott Poretsky Expires in: January 2006 Reef Point Systems Rajiv Papneja Isocore Takumi Kimura NTT SIL July 2005 Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance <draft-poretsky-protection-term-00.txt> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement: 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. 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, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Abstract This document provides common terminology and metrics for benchmarking the performance of sub-IP layer protection mechanisms. The performance benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer, so avoid dependence on specific sub-IP protections mechanisms. The benchmarks and terminology can be applied in methodology documents for different sub-IP layer protection mechanisms such as Automatic Link Protection (APS) for SONET/SDH, Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) for Ethernet, and Fast Reroute for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................. 3 2. Existing definitions ...................................... 4 3. Term definitions .......................................... 4 3.1 Paths 3.1.1 Path ............................................... 4 3.1.2 Working Path ....................................... 5 3.1.3 Primary Path ....................................... 5 3.1.4 Protected Primary Path .............................. 6 3.1.5 Backup Path ........................................ 6 3.1.6 Standby Backup Path ................................ 6 3.1.7 Dynamic Backup Path ................................ 7 3.2 Protection 3.2.1 Protection Switching System ......................... 7 3.2.2 Link Protection .................................... 8 3.2.3 Node Protection .................................... 8 3.2.4 Path Protection .................................... 8 3.2.5 Backup Span ........................................ 9 3.3 Failure 3.3.1 Failure Detection .................................. 9 3.3.2 Failover ........................................... 10 3.3.3 Failover Event ...................................... 10 3.3.4 Failure Recovery ................................... 10 3.3.5 Reversion .......................................... 11 3.4 Nodes 3.4.1 Protection-Switching Node .......................... 11 3.4.2 Non-Protection-Switching Node ...................... 12 3.4.3 Failover Node ...................................... 12 3.4.4 Merge Node ......................................... 12 3.5 Metrics 3.5.1 Failover Packet Loss ............................... 13 3.5.2 Reversion Packet Loss ...............................13 3.5.3 Primary Path Latency ............................... 14 3.5.4 Backup Path Latency ................................ 14 3.6 Benchmarks 3.6.1 Failover Time ...................................... 14 3.6.2 Additive Backup Latency ............................. 15 3.6.3 Reversion Time ...................................... 15 4. IANA Considerations ........................................ 16 5. Security Considerations ................................... 16 6. References ................................................ 16 7. Authors' Addresses ........................................ 17 Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 1. Introduction The IP network layer provides route convergence to protect data traffic against planned and unplanned failures in the internet. Fast convergence times are critical to maintain reliable network connectivity and performance. Technologies that function at sub-IP layers can be enabled to provide further protection of IP traffic by providing the failure recovery at the sub-IP layers so that the outage is not observed at the IP-layer. Such technologies include High Availability (HA) stateful failover. Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), Automatic Link Protection (APS) for SONET/SDH, Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) for Ethernet, and Fast Reroute for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). Benchmarking terminology and methodology have been defined for IP-layer route convergence [7,8,9]. New terminology and methodologies specific to benchmarking sub-IP layer protection mechanisms are required. This will enable different implementations of the same protection mechanisms to be benchmarked and evaluated. In addition, different protection mechanisms can be benchmarked and evaluated. The metrics for benchmarking the performance of sub-IP protection mechanisms are measured at the IP layer, so that the results are always measured in reference to IP and independent of the specific protection mechanism being used. The purpose of this document is to provide a single terminology for benchmarking sub-IP protection mechanisms. It is intended that there can exist unique methodology documents for each sub-IP protection mechanism. Figure 1 shows the fundamental model that is to be used in benchmarking sub-IP protection mechanisms. Protection Switching consists of a minimum of two Protection-Switching Nodes with a Primary Path and a Backup Path. A Failover Event occurs along the Primary Path. A tester is set outside the two nodes as it sends and receives IP traffic along the Working Path. The Working Path is the Primary Path prior to the Failover Event and the Backup Path following the Failover Event. If Reversion is supported then the +-----------+ +--------------------| Tester |<-------------------+ | +-----------+ | | IP Traffic | Failover IP Traffic | | | Event | | Primary | | | +--------+ Path v +--------+ | | | |------------------------>| | | +--->| Node 1 | | Node 2 |----+ | |- - - - - - - - - - - - >| | +--------+ Backup Path +--------+ | IP-Layer Forwarding | +-------------------------------------------+ Figure 1. System Under Test (SUT) for Sub-IP Protection Mechanisms Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Working Path is the Primary Path after Failure Recovery. The tester MUST record the IP packet sequence numbers, departure time, and arrival time so that the metrics of Failover Time, Additive Latency, and Reversion Time can be measured. The Tester may be a single device or a test system. 2. Existing definitions This document draws on existing terminology defined in other BMWG work. Examples include, but are not limited to: Latency [RFC 1242, section 3.8] Frame Loss Rate [RFC 1242, section 3.6] Throughput [RFC 1242, section 3.17] Device Under Test (DUT) [RFC 2285, section 3.1.1] System Under Test (SUT) [RFC 2285, section 3.1.2] Out-of-order Packet [Ref.[4], section 3.3.2] Duplicate Packet [Ref.[4], section 3.3.3] This document adopts the definition format in Section 2 of RFC 1242. 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. 3. Term definitions 3.1 Path 3.1.1 Path Definition: A sequence of nodes, <R1, ..., Rn>, with the following properties: - R1 is the ingress node and forwards IP packets, which input into DUT/SUT, to R2 as sub-IP frames. - Ri is a node which forwards data frames to R[i+1] for all i, 1<i<n, based on information in the sub-IP layer. - Rn is the egress node and it outputs sub-IP frames from DUT/SUT as IP packets. Discussion: The path is defined in the sub-IP layer in this document, unlike an IP path in RFC 2026. For example, the SONET/SDH path, the label switched path for MPLS, and optical path. One path may be regarded as being equivalent to one IP link between two IP nodes, i.e., R1 and Rn. The two IP nodes may have multiple paths for protection. A packet will travel on only one path between the nodes. Packets belonging to a microflow (RFC 2474) will transverse one or more paths. The path is unidirectional. Measurement units: n/a Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Issues: "A bidirectional path", which transmits traffic in both directions along the same nodes, consists of two unidirectional paths. Therefore, the two unidirectional paths belonging to "one bidirectional path" will be treated independently when benchmarking for " a bidirectional path". See Also: 3.1.2 Working Path Definition: The path that the DUT/SUT is currently using to forward packets. Discussion: A Primary Path is a Working Path before occurrence of a Failover Event. A Backup Path becomes the Working Path after a Failover Event. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Primary Path Backup Path 3.1.3 Primary Path Definition: The preferred path for forwarding traffic between two or more nodes. Discussion: Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 3.1.4 Protected Primary Path Definition: The Primary Path that is protected with a Backup Path. Discussion: Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Primary Path 3.1.5 Backup Path Definition: A path that exists to carry data traffic only if a Failover Event occurs. Discussion: The Backup Path is the Working Path upon a Failover Event. There are various types of Backup Paths: a dedicated recovery path (1+1), which has 100% redundancy for a specific ordinary path, a shared Backup Path (1:N), which is dedicated to the protection for more than one specific Primary Path, and an associated shared Backup Path (M:N) for which a specific set of Backup Paths protects a specific set of more than one Primary Path. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Working Path Primary Path 3.1.6 Standby Backup Path Definition: A Backup Path that is established prior to a Failover Event to protect a Primary Path. Discussion: Measurement units: n/a Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Issues: See Also: Path Working Path Primary Path Failover Event 3.1.7 Dynamic Backup Path Definition: A Backup Path that is established upon occurrence of a Failover Event. Discussion: Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Working Path Primary Path Failover Event 3.2 Protection 3.2.1 Protection Switching System Definition: A SUT that is capable of Failover from a Primary to a Backup Path. Discussion: The Protection Switching System MUST have a Primary Path and a Backup Path. The Backup Path MAY be a Standby Backup Path or a Dymanic Backup Path. The Protection Switching System includes the mechanisms for both Failure Detection and Failover. Measurement units: Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Failure Detection Failover Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 3.2.2 Link Protection Definition: A Backup Path that provides protection for link failure. Discussion: Link Protection may or may not protect the entire Primary Path. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path 3.2.3 Node Protection Definition: A Backup Path that provides protection for failure of a single node and its directly connected links. Discussion: Node Protection may or may not protect the entire Primary Path. Node Protection also provides Link Protection. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Link Protection 3.2.4 Path Protection Definition: A Backup Path that provides protection for the entire Primary Path. Discussion: Path Protection provides Node Protection and Link Protection for every node and link along the Primary Path. A Backup Path providing Path Protection MUST have the same ingress node as the Primary Path. Measurement units: n/a Issues: Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Node Protection Link protection 3.2.5 Backup Span Definition: The number of nodes in the Primary Path that are protected by a Backup Path. Discussion: Measurement units: number of nodes Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path 3.3 Failure 3.3.1 Failure Detection Definition: To identify a Primary Path failure at a sub-IP layer. Discussion: Failure Detection occurs at the ingress node of the Primary Path. Failure Dection occurs via a sub-IP mechanism such as detection of a link down event or timeout for receipt of a control packet. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 3.3.2 Failover Event Definition: The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network that results in a change in the Path that data traffic traverses. Discussion: Failover Events include, but are not limited to, link failure and router failure. Routing changes are considered Convergence Events [7] and are not Failover Events. This restricts Failover Events to sub-IP layers. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Path Failure Detection 3.3.3 Failover Definition: To switch data traffic from the Primary Path to the Backup Path upon a Failover Event. Discussion: Failover to a Backup Path provides Link Protection, Node Protection, or Path Protection. Failover is complete when Lost Packets, Out-of-Order Packets, and Duplicate Packets are no longer observed. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Failover Event 3.3.4 Failure Recovery Definition: The act of the Primary Path being restored following a Failover Event. Discussion: Failure Recovery MUST occur when the Backup Path is the Working Path. The Backup Path is maintained as the Working Path during Failure Recovery. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Measurement units: Issues: See Also: Primary Path Failover Event Failure Recovery Working Path Backup Path 3.3.5 Reversion Definition: The act of restoring the Primary Path as the Working Path. Discussion: Protection Switching Systems may or may not support Reversion. Reversion, if supported, MUST occur after Failure Recovery. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Protection Switching System Working Path Primary Path 3.4 Nodes 3.4.1 Protection-Switching Node Definition: A node that is capable to participate in a Protection Switching System. Discussion: The Protection Switching Node MAY be an ingress or egress for a Primary Path or Backup Path. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Protection Switching System Primary Path Backup Path Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 3.4.2 Non-Protection Switching Node Definition: A node that not capable of participating in a Protection Switching System, however it MAY exist along the Primary Path or Backup Path. Discussion: Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Protection Switching System Primary Path Backup Path 3.4.3 Failover Node Definition: A node along the Primary Path that is capable of Failover. Discussion: The Failover Node can be any node along the Primary Path except the egress node of the Primary Path. There can be multiple Failover Nodes along a Primary Path. The Failover Node MUST be the ingress to the Backup Path. The Failover Node MAY also be the ingress of the Primary Path. Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Failover 3.4.4 Merge Node Definition: A node along the Primary Path that is also the egress node of the Backup Path. Discussion: The Merge Node can be any node along the Primary Path except the ingress node of the Primary Path. There can be multiple Merge Nodes along a Primary Path. A Merge Node can be the egress node for a single or multiple Backup Paths. The Merge Node MUST be the egress to the Backup Path. The Merge Node MAY also be the egress of the Primary Path. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Measurement units: n/a Issues: See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Failover 3.5 Metrics 3.5.1 Failover Packet Loss Definition: The amount of packet loss produced by a Failover Event until Failover completes. Discussion: Packet loss can be observed as a reduction of forwarded traffic from the maximum forwarding rate. Failover Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. Failover Packet Loss MAY reach 100% of the offered load. Measurement units: Number of Packets Issues: See Also: Failover Event Failover 3.5.2 Reversion Packet Loss Definition: The amount of packet loss produced by Reversion. Discussion: Packet loss can be observed as a reduction of forwarded traffic from the maximum forwarding rate. Reversion Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. Reversion Packet Loss MAY reach 100% of the offered load. Measurement units: Number of Packets Issues: See Also: Reversion Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 3.5.3 Primary Path Latency Definition: Latency [2] measured along the Primary Path. Discussion: Measurement units: seconds Issues: See Also: Primary Path 3.5.4 Backup Path Latency Definition: Latency [2] measured along the Backup Path. Discussion: Measurement units: seconds Issues: See Also: Backup Path 3.6 Benchmarks 3.6.1 Failover Time Definition: The amount of time it takes for Failover to complete so that the Backup Path is the Working Path. Discussion: Failover Time can be calculated from Failover Packet Loss that occurs due to a Failover Event and Failover as shown below in Equation 1: (eq 1) Failover Time = Failover Packets Loss / Offered Load NOTE: Units for this measurement are packets / packets/second = seconds Failover Time includes failure detection time and time for data traffic to begin traversing the Backup Path. Measurement units: Seconds Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Issues: See Also: Failover Failover Packet loss Working Path Bakup Path 3.6.2 Additive Backup Latency Definition: The amount of increased latency resulting from data traffic traversing the Backup Path instead of the Primary Path. Discussion: Additive Backup Latency is calculated using Equation 2 as shown below: (eq 2) Additive Backup Latency = Backup Path Latency - Primary Path Latency. Measurement units: Seconds Issues: Additive Backup Latency MAY be a negative result. This is theoretically possible, but could be indicative of a sub-optimum network configuration . See Also: Primary Path Backup Path Primary Path Latency Backup Path Latency 3.6.3 Reversion Time Definition: The amount of time it takes for Reversion to complete so that the Primary Path is restored as the Working Path. Discussion: Reversion Time can be calculated from Reversion Packet Loss that occurs due to a Failure Recovery as shown below in Equation 3: (eq 3) Reversion Time = Reversion Packets Loss / Offered Load NOTE: Units for this measurement are packets / packets/second = seconds Reversion Time starts upon completion of Failure Recovery and includes the time for data traffic to begin traversing the Primary Path. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 Measurement units: Seconds Issues: See Also: Reversion Primary Path Working Path Reversion Packet Loss Failure Recovery 4. IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA considerations. 5. Security Considerations This document only addresses terminology for the performance benchmarking of protection systems, and the information contained in this document has no effect on the security of the Internet. 6. References 6.1 Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. [3] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. [4] Perser, J., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-05.txt, February 2003. [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [6] Paxson, V., et al., "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2026, May 1998. [7] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-07, work in progress, July 2005. [8] Berkowitz, H., et al, "Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device Convergence in the Control Plane", RFC 4098, June 2005. [9] White, R., et al, "OSPF Benchmarking Terminology and Concepts", RFC 4062, April 2005. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 7. Authors' Addresses Scott Poretsky Reef Point Systems 8 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 USA Phone: + 1 508 439 9008 EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com Rajiv Papneja Isocore 12359 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 22102 USA Phone: 1 703 860 9273 Email: rpapneja@isocore.com Takumi Kimura NTT Service Integration Laboratories 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Phone: +81 422 59 3026 EMail: takumi.kimura@lab.ntt.co.jp Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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. Intellectual Property 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. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Protection Performance Terminology July 2005 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Poretsky, Papneja, and Kimura Expires July 2005 [Page 18]