MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, bmwg mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, bmwg chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows ' <draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-06.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-06.txt
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.