IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
RFC 5180
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2017-05-16
|
05 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Chip Popoviciu" to "Chip Popoviciu, Diego Dugatkin, Ahmed Hamza, Gunter Van de Velde" |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-05-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-05-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5180' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-05-19
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2008-04-09
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2008-04-09
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2008-04-09
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2008-04-08
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2008-04-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2008-04-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-04-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2008-04-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2008-04-07
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2008-02-28
|
05 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica |
|
2008-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] |
|
2008-02-25
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2008-02-14
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-02-07
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-02-07
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-05.txt |
|
2008-01-11
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-01-10 |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] w.r.t. 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to be used on Ethernet Ethernet in all its types has become the most commonly deployed media … [Ballot discuss] w.r.t. 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to be used on Ethernet Ethernet in all its types has become the most commonly deployed media in today's networks. The following frame sizes SHOULD be used for benchmarking over this media type: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 bytes. Note: The recommended 1518 bytes frame size represents the maximum size of an untagged Ethernet frame. According to the IEEE 802.3as standard [12], the frame size can be increased up to 2048 bytes to accommodate frame tags. First the current increased maximal frame size accomodates not only tags but also other encapsulation required by the IEEE 802.1AE MAC security protocol. The other more significant aspect is that I believe that the recommended frame size choice should include 1522 (max size of a max length frame VLAN-tagged as per IEEE 802.1D) and 2048. My suggestion is to include these here and also in the table in Annex A.1 |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > … [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > extension headers (the chain MUST not contain the hop-by-hop > extension header). I was surprised by the strength of the requirement here (MUST). Overall, with the exception of hbh on routers and packet inspection features on any device, extension headers should not affect routing and forwarding performance. > [permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA] The syntax for defining this is rather loose. > where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet > through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field > is defined as: > o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic > o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol > o udp: User Datagram Protocol Does "udp" mean "udp over IPv6" in this context? Or "udp over either IPv4 or IPv6"? |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: … [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: > Note: During testing, either static or dynamic options for neighbor > discovery can be used. The static option can be used as long as it > is supported by the test tool. The dynamic option is preferred > wherein the test tool interacts with the DUT for the duration of the > test to maintain the respective neighbor caches in an active state. > To avoid neighbor solicitation (NS) and neighbor advertisement (NA) > storms due to the neighbor unreachability detection (NUD) mechanism > [3], the test scenarios assume test traffic simulates end points and > IPv6 source and destination addresses are one hop beyond the DUT. Static and dynamic are not defined here or in the ND RFCs. Please define what you mean. Also, given the assumption about addresses on the directly attached subnets, presumably the only ND traffic, if any, would relate to address resolution of the router's address. > Special care needs to be taken about the neighbor unreachability > detection (NUD) [3] process. What care? Be more specific. Note that as the test traffic is not from directly connected subnets, all parties involved in the test are either routers or test equipment pretending to be routers. Why would they invoke NUD? > The IPv6 prefix reachable time in the > router advertisement SHOULD be set to 30 seconds and allow 50% > jitter. Jitter is not a term recognized by RFC 4861 that defines router advertisements. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the parameters that should be configured to the router advertisements? > IANA reserved prefix xxxxx/48 for IPv6 benchmarking similar to > 198.18.0.0/15 in RFC 3330 [9]. This prefix length provides similar > flexibility as the range allocated for IPv4 benchmarking and it is > taking into consideration address conservation and simplicity of > usage concerns. The requested size meets the requirements for > testing large network elements and large emulated networks. > > Note to IANA: Replace "xxxxx" with assigned prefix. If this is the instruction that IANA uses to make the allocation (?), it has too little instruction. Presumably you meant to say something along the lines of: The IANA is instructed to allocate a prefix of size N from the space defined in RFC 4773 for use in ... |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > … [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > extension headers (the chain MUST not contain the hop-by-hop > extension header). I was surprised by the strength of the requirement here (MUST). > [permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA] The syntax for defining this is rather loose. > where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet > through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field > is defined as: > o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic > o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol > o udp: User Datagram Protocol Does "udp" mean "udp over IPv6" in this context? Or "udp over either IPv4 or IPv6"? |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: … [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: > Special care needs to be taken about the neighbor unreachability > detection (NUD) [3] process. What care? Be more specific. Note that as the test traffic is not from directly connected subnets, all parties involved in the test are either routers or test equipment pretending to be routers. Why would they invoke NUD? > The IPv6 prefix reachable time in the > router advertisement SHOULD be set to 30 seconds and allow 50% > jitter. Jitter is not a term recognized by RFC 4861 that defines router advertisements. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the parameters that should be configured to the router advertisements? > IANA reserved prefix xxxxx/48 for IPv6 benchmarking similar to > 198.18.0.0/15 in RFC 3330 [9]. This prefix length provides similar > flexibility as the range allocated for IPv4 benchmarking and it is > taking into consideration address conservation and simplicity of > usage concerns. The requested size meets the requirements for > testing large network elements and large emulated networks. > > Note to IANA: Replace "xxxxx" with assigned prefix. If this is the instruction that IANA uses to make the allocation (?), it has too little instruction. Presumably you meant to say something along the lines of: The IANA is instructed to allocate a prefix of size N from the space defined in RFC 4773 for use in ... |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: … [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: > Special care needs to be taken about the neighbor unreachability > detection (NUD) [3] process. What care? Be more specific. Note that as the test traffic is not from directly connected subnets, all parties involved in the test are either routers or test equipment pretending to be routers. Why would they invoke NUD? > The IPv6 prefix reachable time in the > router advertisement SHOULD be set to 30 seconds and allow 50% > jitter. Jitter is not a term recognized by RFC 4861 that defines router advertisements. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the parameters that should be configured to the router advertisements? > [permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA] > > > where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet > through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field > is defined as: > o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic > o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol > o udp: User Datagram Protocol > IANA reserved prefix xxxxx/48 for IPv6 benchmarking similar to > 198.18.0.0/15 in RFC 3330 [9]. This prefix length provides similar > flexibility as the range allocated for IPv4 benchmarking and it is > taking into consideration address conservation and simplicity of > usage concerns. The requested size meets the requirements for > testing large network elements and large emulated networks. > > Note to IANA: Replace "xxxxx" with assigned prefix. If this is the instruction that IANA uses to make the allocation (?), it has too little instruction. Presumably you meant to say something along the lines of: The IANA is instructed to allocate a prefix of size N from the space defined in RFC 4773 for use in ... |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: … [Ballot discuss] This is an overall good document and well worth publishing. However, there were a number of specific technical issues that should be addressed: > Special care needs to be taken about the neighbor unreachability > detection (NUD) [3] process. What care? Be more specific. Note that as the test traffic is not from directly connected subnets, all parties involved in the test are either routers or test equipment pretending to be routers. Why would they invoke NUD? > The IPv6 prefix reachable time in the > router advertisement SHOULD be set to 30 seconds and allow 50% > jitter. Jitter is not a term recognized by RFC 4861 that defines router advertisements. What specific recommendation do you have regarding the parameters that should be configured to the router advertisements? > [permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA] > > > where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet > through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field > is defined as: > o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic > o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol > o udp: User Datagram Protocol |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > … [Ballot comment] > Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST > be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more > extension headers (the chain MUST not contain the hop-by-hop > extension header). I was surprised by the strength of the requirement here (MUST). |
|
2008-01-10
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2008-01-09
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2008-01-09
|
05 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2008-01-08
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Evaluation comments: Note: It would be helpful to have some language added to the IANA section or somewhere in the document about why ULA … IANA Evaluation comments: Note: It would be helpful to have some language added to the IANA section or somewhere in the document about why ULA space in not appropriate and why special use space is preferred. Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "IANA IPv6 Special Purpose Address Registry – per [RFC4773]" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry Prefix: TBD/48 Assignment: BMWG Date Designated: DD MMM YY Termination Date: never Purpose: Benchmarking Contact Details: BMWG Routing Scope: Not Routed Reference: [RFC-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt] (registration data will be formatted per existing registry format) We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
|
2008-01-08
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 4., paragraph 2: > Throughout the test, the DUT can be monitored for relevant resource Expand acronym: DUT Section 5.3., … [Ballot comment] Section 4., paragraph 2: > Throughout the test, the DUT can be monitored for relevant resource Expand acronym: DUT Section 5.3., paragraph 4: > extension headers (the chain MUST not contain the hop-by-hop Nit: s/MUST not/MUST NOT/ |
|
2008-01-08
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2008-01-04
|
05 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-01-10 by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2007-12-27
|
05 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-10-29
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | PROTO Write-up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, … PROTO Write-up (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Al Morton, chair of BMWG, has personally reviewed the document and will be the document shepherd. The document is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has received extensive review and generated considerable discussion over the last year and a half. Key people from the v6ops WG have reviewed the draft at various stages, including Pekka Savola, Brian Carpenter, Athanassios Liakopoulos and Benoit Lourdelet. The Doc Shepherd has no concerns about the extent of review. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no known concerns. No IPR disclosures related to draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth have been submitted as of Oct 24, 2007. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The Working Group consensus behind this document is very strong. The document benefits from extensive comments provided by many WG members during three WG Last Calls. Comment resolutions have been tracked and may be reviewed here: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-Meth-Last-Call-resolution2.pdf Scott Bradner, Bill Cerveny, and Rajiv Asati completed the BMWG review template (see http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt ). David Newman and Dan Romascanu (as a participant) also provided comments and participated in discussions. The third WG Last call was relatively silent with only two minor comments that were easily resolved. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The single nits error in this document: tmp/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt(708): Found possible IPv4 address '198.18.0.0' in position 4; this doesn't match RFC3330's suggested 192.0.2.0/24 address range. is a reference to the address range that IANA assigned to BMWG as part of the IANA section (where a new IPv6 address range assignment is requested) The document does not require MIB Doctor review, etc. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split, and all normative references are RFCs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The IANA section requests a dedicated IPv6 address range for BMWG lab testing, using the existing range as an example. The size of the requested range reached consensus in the BMWG. No expert review should be necessary. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? NA (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' Technical Summary The Benchmarking Methodologies defined in RFC2544 [8] are IP version independent. However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the specificities of IPv6. This document provides additional benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC2544, lead to a more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of network interconnect devices. IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. Working Group Summary The Working Group consensus behind this document is very strong. The document benefits from extensive comments provided by many WG members during three WG Last Calls. Comment resolutions have been tracked and may be reviewed here: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-meth-comment-resolution.pdf http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/IPv6-Meth-Last-Call-resolution2.pdf Scott Bradner, Bill Cerveny, and Rajiv Asati completed the BMWG review template (see http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt ). David Newman and Dan Romascanu (as a participant) also provided comments and participated in discussions. The third WG Last call was relatively silent with only two minor comments that were easily resolved. Document Quality At least one test equipment vendor has already implemented this specification. Personnel Al Morton is the Document Shepherd. Ron Bonica is the AD responsible for the BMWG The Document Shepherd MUST send the Document Shepherd Write-Up to the Responsible Area Director and iesg-secretary@ietf.org together with the request to publish the document. The Document Shepherd SHOULD also send the entire Document Shepherd Write-Up to the working group mailing list. If the Document Shepherd feels that information which may prove to be sensitive, may lead to possible appeals, or is personal needs to be written up, it SHOULD be sent in direct email to the Responsible Area Director, because the Document Shepherd Write-Up is published openly in the ID Tracker. Question (1.f) of the Write-Up covers any material of this nature and specifies this more confidential handling. |
|
2007-10-29
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
|
2007-10-12
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt |
|
2007-08-30
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-03.txt |
|
2007-07-05
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02.txt |
|
2007-02-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01.txt |
|
2007-01-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-00.txt |