MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
RFC 5695

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-26 for -)
No email
send info
This sentence in Section 2 doesn't parse:
   The fact that MPLS forwarding
   places a different burden on the resources of the network forwarding
   devices from that of IP forwarding, MPLS forwarding benchmarking
   specifics are desired.

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-26)
No email
send info
A variety of nits...

Figure 1

The text refers to DUT ports DA1...DAp and DB1...DBp, but the figure only shows DA1, DA2, DB1, and DB2.

Section 4

"p => 2" might more usually be expressed as "p >= 2"

Section 4.1.1

I am uncomfortable with the equation of "remote network" with "MPLS FEC". Perhaps you can say "IP Prefix FEC".


Section 4.1.2

Is the term "highly RECOMMENDED" a new contribution for draft-ietf-rfc2119bis-00.txt?

I think you can either stay with "RECOMMENDED" or move to "MUST".



   This document requires only a single entry in
   the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet.

I think you intend to go further, don't you? Specifically, you don't support more than one label in the stack.





Section 4.1.5

Your section numbers referenced are out by -0.0.1

See,, and 4.1.3.

May be endemic. Check the whole document.


Section 4.1.7


(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection