Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, bmwg mailing list <email@example.com>, bmwg chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance ' <draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-09.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-protection-term-09.txt
Technical Summary The purpose of this document is to provide a single terminology for benchmarking sub-IP protection mechanisms. Technologies that transport IP packets can be designed to provide protection for IP traffic by providing the failure recovery at lower layers. Possibly, the outage is not even observed at the IP-layer. Sub-IP protection technologies include, but are not limited to, High Availability (HA) stateful failover, Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), Automatic Link Protection (APS) for SONET/SDH, Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) for Ethernet, and Fast Reroute for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-FRR). Benchmarking terminology was defined for IP-layer convergence in draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-21 . Different terminology and methodologies specific to benchmarking sub-IP layer protection mechanisms are required. The metrics for benchmarking the performance of sub-IP protection mechanisms are measured at the IP layer, so that the results are independent of the specific protection mechanism being used. Working Group Summary Working group consensus was smoothly achieved over a period of several years, with many controversies ironed-out before WG adoption. Several authors came and went, but others were willing to pick-up the work and complete it, so here we are. Document Quality Q - Are there existing implementations of the protocol? A these documents neither propose a new protocol nor extend any existing one, hence current implementations are not required to support this document. The document only attempts to standardize the benchmarking strategies so that service providers could evaluate multiple protection implementations using standard figures of merit with an aim of producing consistent test results across multiple platforms. Q - Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? A - Several test vendors, including the leading ones, have shown their support and interest in the execution of these methodologies. The authors have regularly acknowledged them in WG status presentations. Reference/acknowledgements were shared in the following: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/bmwg-3/bmwg-3.ppt Q - 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? A - The following lays down the history of this work item, which demonstrates substantial revisions of the documents based on comments form the BMWGers 1. July 2005: Common protection terminology created due to merger of draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt and draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-02 as result of series of reviews and comments. New draft-poretsky-protection-term-00.txt created. 2. December 2005: another effort with additional test scenarios (draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt) was merged into draft-poretsky-meth-05. It was felt that additional scenarios proposed were needed to offer comprehensive MPLS (including the services) based protection techniques evaluation. Terms checked against this new methodology. 3. June 2006: Due to additional test items proposal, a new draft was created draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt 4. Also in the combined effort Mr. Vapiwala were included as one of the co-authors due to his contribution to the effort in the form of additional test scenarios for the methodology document, and accordingly updating the terminology document. 5. The acknowledgement section is included for terminology document to thank those who significantly helped in shaping the final version. The document did receive comments from one of co-authors of original fast reroute RFC 4090 in the early versions of the work item document in addition to other pioneers in the MPLS field. Personnel Al Morton is shepherd.