BMWG G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft E. Vasilenko
Intended status: Informational P. Volpato
Expires: 31 August 2023 Huawei Technologies
L. Contreras
Telefonica
B. Decraene
Orange
27 February 2023
Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-srmpls-bench-meth-05
Abstract
This document defines a methodology for benchmarking Segment Routing
(SR) performance for Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). It builds
upon [RFC2544], [RFC5695] and [RFC8402].
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119],
RFC 8174 [RFC8174].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. SR-MPLS Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Label Distribution Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Traffic Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Buffer tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. SR-MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Throughput for SR-MPLS PUSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2. Throughput for SR-MPLS NEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. Throughput for SR-MPLS CONTINUE . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Buffers size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. System Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR), defined in [RFC8402], leverages the source
routing paradigm. The headend node steers a packet through an SR
Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], instantiated as an
ordered list of segments. A segment, referred to by its Segment
Identifier (SID), can have a semantic local to an SR node or global
within an SR domain. SR supports per-flow explicit routing while
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress nodes to the SR
domain.
However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast
the foundational SR packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document aims to extend the efforts of [RFC1242] and
[RFC2544] to SR network.
The SR architecture can be instantiated on two data-plane: SR over
MPLS (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6). This document is limited to
SR-MPLS.
It is expected that future documents may cover the benchmarking of
SR-MPLS applications such as Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) [RFC4364], EVPN
[RFC7432], Fast ReRoute [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], etc.
SR can be directly applied to the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) architecture with no change to the forwarding plane [RFC8660].
A segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An SR Policy is instantiated
as a stack of labels.
SR-MPLS involves 3 types of forwarding plane operations:
* PUSH consists of the insertion of one or more segments on top of
the incoming packet It is the outer label of the SR-MPLS label
stack.
* NEXT consists of the inspection of the next segment. The active
segment is completed and the next segment is activated. It is a
POP of the top label in SR-MPLS.
* CONTINUE happens when the active segment is not completed; hence,
it remains active. It is a SWAP of the top label in SR-MPLS.
SR list for PUSH operation is typically constructed by SR Policy in
ingress node, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
[RFC5695] describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking of
MPLS forwarding devices, by considering the most common MPLS packet
forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements.
The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of Segment Routing. The methodology described is a
complement for [RFC5695].
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
2. SR-MPLS Forwarding
In MPLS, a Prefix-SID is allocated in the form of an MPLS label. For
SR-MPLS, Segment Routing does not require any change to the MPLS
forwarding plane. An SR Policy is instantiated through the MPLS
Label Stack: the Segment IDs (SIDs) of a Segment List are inserted as
MPLS Labels. The classical forwarding functions available for MPLS
networks allow implementing the SR operations.
The operations applied by the SR-MPLS forwarding plane are PUSH,
NEXT, and CONTINUE.
The PUSH operation corresponds to the Label Push function, according
to the MPLS label pushing rules specified in [RFC3032]. It consists
of pushing one or more MPLS labels on top of an incoming packet then
sending it out of a particular physical interface or virtual
interface towards a particular next hop.
The NEXT operation corresponds to the Label Pop function, which
consists of removing the topmost label. The action before and/or
after the popping depends on the instruction associated with the
active SID on the received packet prior to the popping. It is
equivalent to Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP).
The CONTINUE operation corresponds to the Label Swap function,
according to the MPLS label-swapping rules in [RFC3031]. It consists
of associating an incoming label with an outgoing interface and
outgoing label and forwarding the packet to the outgoing interface.
It is equivalent to Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP).
The encapsulation of an IP packet into an SR-MPLS packet is performed
at the edge of an SR-MPLS domain, reusing the MPLS Forwarding
Equivalent Class (FEC) concept. A Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC)
can be associated with an SR Policy
([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]). When pushing labels onto
a packet's label stack, the Time-to-Live (TTL) field and the Traffic
Class (TC) field of each label stack entry must also be set.
All SR nodes in the SR domain use an IGP signaling extension to
advertise their own prefix SIDs. After receiving the advertised
prefix SIDs, each SR node calculates the prefix SIDs to the
advertisers. The prefix SID advertisement can be an absolute value
advertisement or an index value advertisement. In this regard, the
mapping of Segments to MPLS Labels (SIDs) is an important process in
the SR-MPLS data plane. Each router can advertise its own available
label space to be used for Global Segments called Segment Routing
Global Block (SRGB) and an identical range of labels (SRGB) should be
used in all routers in order to simplify services and operations. In
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
the SR domain Global Segments can be identified by an index, which
has to be re-mapped into a label, or by an absolute value. This is
relevant for the nodes that perform the NEXT operation to the
segments, because the label for the next segments needs to be crafted
accordingly.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] specifies the concepts of SR
Policy and steering into an SR Policy. The header of a packet
steered in an SR Policy is augmented with the ordered list of
segments associated with that SR Policy. SR Policy state is
instantiated only on the headend node, which steers a flow into an SR
Policy. Indeed intermediate and endpoint nodes do not require any
state to be maintained. SR Policies can be instantiated on the
headend dynamically and on demand basis. SR policy may be installed
by PCEP [RFC8664], BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], or
via manual configuration on the router. PCEP and BGP signaling of SR
Policies can be the case of a controller-based deployment.
3. Test Methodology
3.1. Test Setup
The test setup in general is compliant with section 6 of [RFC2544]
but augmented by the methodology specified in section 4 of [RFC5695]
using many ports. In fact, it is needed to test the packet
forwarding engine that may have different performance based on the
number of ports served. The Device Under Test (DUT) may have
oversubscribed ports, then traffic for such ports should be
proportionally decreased according to the specific DUT
oversubscription ratio. All ports served by a particular packet
forwarding engine should be loaded in reverse proportion to the
claimed oversubscription ratio. Tests SHOULD be done with
bidirectional traffic that better reflects the real environment for
SR-MPLS nodes. It is OPTIONAL to choose non-equal proportion for
upstream and downstream traffic for some specific aggregation nodes.
The RECOMMENDED topology for SR-MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking should
be the same as MPLS and it is described in section 4 of [RFC5695].
Port numbers involved in the tests and their oversubscription ratio
MUST be reported. This document is benchmarking only “source
routing”. Hence, SIDs represent only prefix and adjacency segments.
In general, MPLS labels at the bottom of the stack may be used to
encode services (L2/L3 VPNs) but it is out of the scope of this
document.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
Segment Routing may also be implemented as a software network
function in an NFV Infrastructure and, in this case, additional
considerations should be done. [ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007] describes test
guidelines for NFV capabilities that require interactions between the
components implementing NFV functionality.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes.
3.2. Label Distribution Support
As specified in [RFC8402], in the context of an IGP-based distributed
control plane, two topological segments are defined: the IGP-
Adjacency segment and the IGP-Prefix segment; while, in the context
of a BGP-based distributed control plane, two topological segments
are defined: the BGP peer segment and the BGP Prefix segment.
It is RECOMMENDED that the DUT and test tool support at least one
option for SID stack construction:
* IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8667]
* OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8665]
* Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
[RFC8669]
* Segment Routing Policy Architecture
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
A routing protocol (OSPF or ISIS or BGP) SHOULD be used for the
construction of the simplest stack of 1 SID. It is RECOMMENDED that
SR policy should be used for the construction of a stack with 2 SIDs.
It is possible to test longer SID lists if there is an interest.
It is RECOMMENDED that the top SID on the list (outer label) should
be an adjacency type to emulate the traffic engineering scenario. In
all cases, SID stack configuration SHOULD happen before packet
forwarding would be started. Control plane convergence speed is not
the subject of the present tests.
The label distribution method and SR policy construction method used
MUST be reported according to Section 4.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
3.3. Frame Formats and Sizes
The tests for SR-MPLS will use Frame characteristics similarly to
section 4.1.5 of [RFC5695], except the need for a bigger MTU to
accommodate many MPLS labels.
It is to be noted that [RFC5695] requires exactly a single entry in
the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet that is not enough to simulate
typical SR SID list. MPLS label values used in any test case MUST be
outside the reserved label value (0-15) unless stated otherwise. The
number of entries in the label stack MUST be reported.
According to section 4.1.4.2 of [RFC5695], the payload is RECOMMENDED
to have an IP packet (IPv6 or IPv4 with UDP or TCP) to better
represent the real environment.
It is assumed that the test would be for Ethernet media only. Other
media is possible (see section 4.1.5.2 of [RFC5695] for the POS
example). Some layer 2 technologies (like POS/PPP) have bit- or
byte- stuffing then [RFC4814] may help to calculate real performance
more accurately or else 1-2% error is expected. The most popular
layer 2 technology for SR is Ethernet, it does not have stuffing.
RECOMMENDED frame sizes are presented below. Any other frame sizes
may be added if suspected of abnormal behavior. For example, some
architectures may allocate buffer memory in big fixed chunks that may
drop performance if frame sizes are chosen just a few octet more than
the fixed chunk size (the second chunk would have a very low memory
utilization).
RECOMMENDED frame sizes are the following:
* Ethernet Minimal: 64+n*4
* DUT Minimal Wire Speed: 128-256 (it depends on the DUT
specification)
* Ethernet Typical: 1518+n*4
* DUT Maximum: 9000
where n is the number of labels (SID Depth).
Note that n*4 octets are added in the previous calculations to
accommodate MPLS labels needed for respective tests. The typical
frame size values are listed above for the DUT minimal wire speed and
maximum, but they can be modified according to the DUT
characteristics. Indeed, the minimum wire speed frame size can be
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
considered based on the DUT specification but, in some cases, many
tests may be needed in the search for the real minimum wire speed
frame size. VLAN tag may additionally increase the frame size. VLAN
tag tests are OPTIONAL.
3.4. Protocol Addresses
IANA reserved an IPv6 address block 2001:0200::/48 ([RFC4773]) for
use with IPv6 benchmark testing and block 198.18.0.0/15 ([RFC3330])
for IPv4 benchmark testing. The type of infrastructure protocol
(IPv6 vs IPv4) that should be used for IGP and BGP in the tests
should be chosen according to the test purpose and requirements.
As it is discussed in section 3.1, there is a need to load the whole
forwarding engine (on all ports). [RFC4814] discusses the importance
to have many flows with address randomization for acceptable hash-
based load balancing that is implemented in all forwarding engines.
In the context of this document, it may also be relevant for SIDs,
because SIDs may be used for hash to choose the next link (depending
on DUT default or desired configuration). It is important to check
what exactly is used for the hash load balancing algorithm on the DUT
to keep these numbers sufficiently random and at volume. It is very
often that IP addresses and transport protocol ports are used instead
of SIDs.
3.5. Trial Duration
The test portion of each trial must take into account the respective
protocol configuration. IGP protocols typically have a shorter hold
time, while some BGP default configurations may be up to 180 seconds.
It is needed to check the default hold time of the DUT for the
respective protocol used.
In general, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be no less than 250
seconds, which is a reasonable value based on common hold time
values. But a test can also adapt to the real setup and select a
different value if default configuration has been changed. The test
portion of each trial can be chosen at least 10 seconds longer than
the hold time to verify that the DUT can maintain a stable control
plane when the data-forwarding plane is under stress.
3.6. Traffic Verification
Traffic verification is following section 4.1.8 of [RFC5695].
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
3.7. Buffer tests
Back-to-back test was initially discussed in section 26.4 [RFC2544]
and later improved in [RFC9004] which is considered the comprehensive
reference for Back-to-back test. Modern forwarding engines are
typically flexible in the buffer distribution between different
ports. Hence, like for all other benchmarking tests, it is important
to stress the forwarding engine on all ports. It should be necessary
to perform throughput tests first because only frame sizes that
stress DUT below wire-speed can be used for back-to-back tests.
Buffers would be filled with the rate equal to the difference between
the theoretical maximum frame rate (wire-speed) and DUT measured
throughput for the respective frame size.
The test time could be much shorter than recommended in [RFC9004]
because typical SR DUT is hardware-based with claimed buffers between
30ms to 100ms. It is better to consult with the vendor to find a
good starting search point. If DUT is software-based then [RFC9004]
recommendation for 2-30 seconds is applied.
Queuing SHOULD NOT have weighted random early detection (WRED) or any
other mechanism that may start dropping packets before the buffer is
filled. Queuing SHOULD be configured for the tail drop which is
typically a non-default configuration. Back-to-back test is rather
complex and expensive (50 runs for every frame size). Hence, it is
OPTIONAL for SR-MPLS.
4. Reporting Format
There are a few parameters that need to be changed in section 5 of
[RFC5695] for SR MPLS tests. New parameters that MUST be reported
are:
* Port numbers involved in the tests and their respective
oversubscription ratio.
* Upstream/downstream traffic proportion (equal bidirectional or
some other split).
* SR-MPLS Forwarding Operations (PUSH/ NEXT/ CONTINUE).
* Number of Segments considered in the MPLS Label Stack and the type
of SIDs used (Global/Local).
* SR Policy construction method (PCEP, BGP, manual configuration).
* Type of the payload (IPv6/IPv4, UDP/TCP).
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
Some parameters MAY be changed:
* Label Distribution protocol and IGP are the same in the context of
SR MPLS. Hence, it is called "label distribution".
* Port media type may be reported only one time for all tests if
only Ethernet media would be tested
* Tested buffers size in frames with respective frame size (for the
optional back-to-back test); it is possible to record calculated
buffer time for wire-speed throughput.
5. SR-MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests
In general, tests are compliant with [RFC2544] but the important
correction discussed in section 6 of [RFC5695] is applied: ports
chosen for every test MUST stress all ports served by one forwarding
engine. It is better to check the DUT specification for the
relationship between ports and the forwarding engine to minimize the
number of ports involved. But it is possible to understand the worst
case by looking at the throughput and latency from the trial tests.
If any doubt exists about how full is the offered load for the
forwarding engine then it is better to stress all ports of the line
card or all ports for the whole router with a centralized forwarding
engine. A partial load on the forwarding engine would show
optimistic results. Controllable traffic distribution between many
ports (as specified in section 4 of [RFC5695]) would need separate
SID announcements for separate ports.
As specified in section 6 of [RFC5695], the traffic is sent from test
tool Tx port(s) to the DUT at a constant load for a fixed-time
interval, and is received from the DUT on test tool Rx port(s). If
any frame loss is detected, then 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 (No-Drop Rate - NDR). Each
iteration should involve varying the offered load of the traffic,
while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number of ports,
number of addresses, frame size, etc.) constant, until the maximum
rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined.
5.1. Throughput
This section contains a description of the tests that are related to
the characterization of a DUT's SR-MPLS traffic forwarding
throughput.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
The list of segments for SR-MPLS is represented as a stack of MPLS
labels. There are three distinct operations to be tested: PUSH, NEXT
and CONTINUE. These correspond to the three forwarding operations of
an MPLS packet: PUSH (or LSP Ingress), POP (or LSP Egress), or SWAP.
It is separately discussed only for throughput tests as an example.
5.1.1. Throughput for SR-MPLS PUSH
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the PUSH forwarding
operation. It is similar to label Push or LSP Ingress forwarding
operation, as per section 6.1.1 of [RFC5695].
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are RECOMMENDED, many are OPTIONAL). The
test tool must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es), as per
Section 3.4, and must use one option for SID stack construction, as
per Section 3.2, on its receive ports and transmit ports towards the
DUT.
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.1.2. Throughput for SR-MPLS NEXT
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the NEXT forwarding
operation. It is equivalent to MPLS Label Pop or Penultimate Hop
Popping (PHP), as per section 6.1.3 of [RFC5695].
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are RECOMMENDED, many are OPTIONAL). The
test tool must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es), as per
Section 3.4, and must use one option for SID stack construction, as
per Section 3.2, on its receive ports and transmit ports towards the
DUT.
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.1.3. Throughput for SR-MPLS CONTINUE
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the CONTINUE
forwarding operation. It is equivalent to MPLS Label Swap or
Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP), as per section 6.1.2 of [RFC5695]. Non-
reserved MPLS label values MUST be used.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are RECOMMENDED, many are OPTIONAL). The
test tool must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es), as per
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
Section 3.4, and must use one option for SID stack construction, as
per Section 3.2, on its receive ports and transmit ports towards the
DUT.
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.2. Buffers size
Back-to-back test is OPTIONAL and SHOULD be performed only after
throughput tests because it SHOULD use only frame sizes that DUT is
not capable to forward wire-speed, as further explained in a previous
section.
Objective: To determine the buffer size as defined in section 6 of
[RFC9004] for each of the SR-MPLS forwarding operations.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC9004] with 2 SIDs RECOMMENDED (many SIDs
are OPTIONAL).
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.3. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in section 6.2 of
[RFC5695] for each of the SR-MPLS forwarding operations (PUSH, NEXT,
CONTINUE).
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are RECOMMENDED, many are OPTIONAL). It is
OPTIONAL to improve the procedure according to section 7.2 [RFC8219]
measuring 500 frames in one test with calculations for typical and
worst-case latency.
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.4. Frame Loss
Objective: To determine the frame-loss rate (as defined in section
6.3 of [RFC5695]) for each of the SR-MPLS forwarding operations of a
DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame sizes.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC5695] with potential extension to test SID
list longer than 1 SID (2 are RECOMMENDED, many are OPTIONAL).
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.5. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition for each of the SR-MPLS forwarding operations.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.4 of [RFC5695].
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC5695] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
5.6. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
device or software reset for each of the SR-MPLS forwarding
operations.
Procedure: Similar to section 4 of [RFC6201] where the types of
resets considered are Hardware resets, Software resets and Power
interruption. They have a different impact on the forwarding
behavior of the device.
Reporting Format: Similar to [RFC6201] with the additional parameters
specified in Section 4.
The Reset tests SHOULD be extended according to [RFC6201] in order to
reset only part of the DUT: only line card reset, only process reset
(for example ISIS), only one routing engine reset in the
configuration with routing engine redundancy, full power
interruption, partial power interruption, etc.
6. Security Considerations
Benchmarking methodologies are limited to technology characterization
in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and
constraints. 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
production networks. The benchmarking network topology is 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.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Al Morton, Gabor Lencse, Boris
Khasanov for the precious comments and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC3330] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3330, September 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3330>.
[RFC4773] Huston, G., "Administration of the IANA Special Purpose
IPv6 Address Block", RFC 4773, DOI 10.17487/RFC4773,
December 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4773>.
[RFC4814] Newman, D. and T. Player, "Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked
Factors in Network Device Benchmarking", RFC 4814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4814, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4814>.
[RFC5695] Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5695, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5695>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
[RFC8219] Georgescu, M., Pislaru, L., and G. Lencse, "Benchmarking
Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", RFC 8219,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8219, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8219>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
9.2. Informative References
[ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007]
ETSI, "ETSI GR NFV-TST 007: Network Functions
Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; Testing; Guidelines on
Interoperability Testing for MANO", 2020,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/NFV-
TST/001_099/007/02.06.01_60/gr_nfv-tst007v020601p.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P.,
Jain, D., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment Routing
Policies in BGP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20, 27 July 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-20>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
09, 23 December 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
segment-routing-ti-lfa-09>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-22, 22 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-22>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[RFC9004] Morton, A., "Updates for the Back-to-Back Frame Benchmark
in RFC 2544", RFC 9004, DOI 10.17487/RFC9004, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9004>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25
80992 Munich
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Eduard Vasilenko
Huawei Technologies
17/4 Krylatskaya str.
Moscow
Email: vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com
Paolo Volpato
Huawei Technologies
Via Lorenteggio, 240
20147 Milan
Italy
Email: paolo.volpato@huawei.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BM for SR-MPLS February 2023
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 18]