Skip to main content

MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
RFC 5695

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-11-06
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-11-06
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5695' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-11-05
06 (System) RFC published
2009-09-25
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-25
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-09-25
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-09-25
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-09-25
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-09-25
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-09-16
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2009-09-14
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-08
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-09-08
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-06.txt
2009-08-28
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27
2009-08-27
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Love Astrand.
2009-08-27
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-27
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-08-27
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2009-08-27
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-08-27
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2009-08-27
06 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
I'm not following the BMWG closely, so maybe this is a non-issue or I'm missing something, in which case I clear quickly.

I …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm not following the BMWG closely, so maybe this is a non-issue or I'm missing something, in which case I clear quickly.

I was surprised to see a document discussing benchmarking (i.e., taking measurements) based on IP flows that didn't refer to any of the metrics and measurement protocols defined in IPPM. I fully understand that the test cases of interest are motivated by the fact that you're measuring IP performance over an MPLS switch. But since you're testing IP performance, the measurements protocols and metrics defined by IPPM are very applicable here, no?
2009-08-27
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-08-26
06 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-08-26
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
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, …
[Ballot comment]
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".

---

Section 4.1.4.1

  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 4.1.4.4

s/Section 4.1.3.1/Section 4.1.4.1/

---

Section 4.1.5

Your section numbers referenced are out by -0.0.1

See 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, and 4.1.3.

May be endemic. Check the whole document.

---

Section 4.1.7

s/vaue/value/
2009-08-26
06 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document, and I'm glad you produced it. I have a couple of questions I'd like to see resolved before …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document, and I'm glad you produced it. I have a couple of questions I'd like to see resolved before it moves forward for publication.

---

IPv6 support?

I think it is your intention to support IPv6.

Section 4.1.8 says that the Ethertype should be checked/reported against "0x8847 or 0x8848 vs. 0x0800"

You need to add 0x86DD.

That said, a common behavior for carrying IPv6 in MPLS is to use the IPv6 explicit null label. I assume you require this facility to be configured off. You might say so somewhere to help people understand
how to keep the label stack to depth 1.

---

Frame Loss and Misdelivery

Early in section 4.1.8 you have:

  Specifically, traffic loss (also referred to as frame loss) is
  defined as the traffic (i.e. one or more frames) not received where
  expected (i.e. received on incorrect port, or received with
  incorrect layer2 or above header information etc.).

But then you say...

  An even
  greater level of verification would be to check if the correct label
  was pushed, but that is out of scope for these tests.

I'm surprised.

You check that the packets arrive on the correct Bn. in other words you
check that the port forwarding is correct. But you don't think that the
label imposition/swap is also an important feature? MPLS is no use unless
the correct label has also been applied. You might as well not bother
checking that the output port is correct.

I think label checking is a fundamental part of frame loss evaluation.

Why is this out of scope?

Note that 6.1.2 says...
    The test tool must receive MPLS packets on receive
    ports Bp (from DUT) with the same label values that were
    advertised using the label distribution protocol.

I think you need to clarify section 6.3 to state that a misdirected frame
(i.e. received on the wrong Bn) is considered as lost. This is not clear from
RFC 2544 or even from RFC 1242 (referenced by 2544).

Then you have to decide whether a frame with the wrong label is "lost". I think it is.

---

Section 6

There is an interesting assumption in...                         

    However, if the forwarding throughput of
    the DUT is more than that of the media rate of a single port, then
    additional ports on A and B Modules MUST be enabled so as to
    exceed the DUT's forwarding throughput.

That is, what happen if the DUT is spec'd such that its forwarding
throughput capability is greater than the capacity of half of its ports?

The problem is also more subtle than described because the traffic sent into the collected An
must not result in any one Bn being overloaded.

---

Section 6.1.2

    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as FEC-to-NHLFE
    (FTN) mapping table per [RFC3031]) must contain non-reserved MPLS
    label values as the outgoing and incoming labels for the learned
    IP prefixes, resulting in MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding operation e.g.
    label swap.

The FTN is not used in label swapping. You may refer to the Incoming
Label Map (ILM) identifying an entry in the NHLFE. Or you can talk
about the Label Forwarding Information Base (LFIB).

This is also the case for 6.1.3 and 6.1.4.

---

Section 6.5

    Note that BMWG plans to produce a separate document focusing on
    'reset' aspects of benchmarking in order to ensure clarity and
    consistency in reset procedures beyond what's specified in
    RFC2544.

    This document does not specify the reset procedures. The text
    below describes the MPLS forwarding benchmarking specific setup
    that will have to be used in conjuction with the procedures from
    the separate document to make this test case meaningful.

I think you would have got away with this had you already started such
a document or at least if you had a charter milestone. But it looks very much
to me that this might not happen.

Can you give any assurances that say that it wouldn't be better to delete this section?
2009-08-26
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-26
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-08-26
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
This sentence in Section 2 doesn't parse:
  The fact that MPLS forwarding
  places a different burden on the resources of the …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2009-08-25
06 Russ Housley [Ballot discuss]
Please see section 4 of this IESG statement:
  http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ad-sponsoring-docs.html

  IETF Last Call is needed for this document.
2009-08-25
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-08-23
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand
2009-08-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27 by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica Created "Approve" ballot
2009-08-15
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-15
06 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-15
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27 by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from IESG Evaluation by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27 by Ron Bonica
2009-08-15
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2009-08-10
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-05.txt
2009-07-09
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-04.txt
2009-06-30
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2009-06-12
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested by Ron Bonica
2009-05-14
06 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD has been changed to Ron Bonica from Adrian Farrel
2009-05-14
06 Cindy Morgan
(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 …
(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?
Yes, this document has been refined in terms of its coverage and detail
over the last 3 years, with good working group and external reviewer comments
and addressed. Since becoming a chartered working group item last year,
the draft has seen two WGLCs with many additional & constructive comments.
The 2nd WGLC was cross-posted to the mpls WG list, and there was some feedback.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg02827.html
The last WGLC went quietly, indicating that the BMWG is
now satisfied with the document.

(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, this methodology appears to satisfy its stated scope, and has benefited
from the extensive review including those listed in the Acknowledgements
section, and from a recently added co-author.

(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.
No specific issues. Development of this draft has been smooth.
No known IPR.

(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?
There were some minor comments addressed as part of the third WGLC (mine),
but otherwise the WG as a whole understands this draft and the need for it.
WG commentary has been sufficiently active.

(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?
The draft passes all nits checks, except for one false alarm:
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

which seems to be related to a section number reference on separate lines:
port(s) Bp. The frame may contain either an IP packet or an MPLS
packet depending on the testcase need, as described in the Section
4.1.4.3. Furthermore, the IP packet must be either an IPv4 or IPv6
^^^^^^^

(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].
No downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
Yes.

(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?
Not Applicable.

(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
Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the use
of MPLS as a forwarding architecture in new and existing network
designs. However, there is no standard method defined to compare
and contrast
the foundational MPLS packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document specifies a methodology using common criteria
(such as throughput, latency, frame loss rate, system recovery,
reset etc.) to evaluate MPLS forwarding of any implementation.

The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific
to the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The methods
described are limited in scope to the most common MPLS packet
forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements in a
laboratory setting. This document focuses on the MPLS label
stack having only
one entry, as it is the fundamental of MPLS forwarding.

Working Group Summary
Development of this memo was smooth.
The memo has been refined in terms of its coverage and detail
over the last 3 years, with good working group and external reviewer
comments addressed.

Document Quality
The authors are not aware of fully functional implementation of this
method, although a number of test tool vendors are considering it, with
variable levels of commitment. Many WG members have thoroughly reviewed this
memo. Reviewers of previous versions include: Carlos Pignataro,
Rodney Dunn, Scott Bradner, and Bill Cerveny.
2009-05-14
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-04-22
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-03.txt
2009-03-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-02.txt
2008-11-03
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-01.txt
2008-09-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt