Allot Communications

67 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington MA 01803 USA + 1 508 309 2179 sporetsky@allot.com

Juniper Networks

1194 North Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale CA 94089 USA + 1 314 378 2571 bimhoff@planetspork.com

Cisco Systems

6A De Kleetlaan Diegem BRABANT 1831 Belgium kmichiel@cisco.com

Benchmarking Working Group This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The terminology is to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally observable (black box) data plane measurements. The terminology can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.

This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Link-State Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Convergence. The motivation and applicability for this benchmarking is provided in . The methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in . The purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to complete execution of the IGP Route Methodology . IGP convergence time is measured on the data plane at the Tester by observing packet loss through the DUT. The methodology and terminology to be used for benchmarking IGP Convergence can be applied to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and link-state IGPs such as ISIS , OSPF , and others.

This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG work. Examples include, but are not limited to: Frame Loss Rate [Ref., section 3.6] Throughput [Ref., section 3.17] Offered Load [Ref., section 3.5.2] Forwarding Rate [Ref., section 3.6.1] Device Under Test (DUT) [Ref., section 3.1.1] System Under Test (SUT) [Ref., section 3.1.2] Out-of-order Packet [Ref., section 3.3.2] Duplicate Packet [Ref., section 3.3.3] Packet Reordering [Ref., section 3.3] Stream [Ref., section 3.3.2] Forwarding Delay [Ref., section 3.2.4] Loss Period [Ref., section 4] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 . RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document.

Definition: The process of updating all components of the router, including the Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB), along with software and hardware tables, with the most recent route change(s) such that forwarding for a route entry is successful on the Next-Best Egress Interface. Discussion: Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Route Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data traffic for a destination matching a route entry to the Next-best Egress Interface. Completion of Route Convergence may or may not be sustained over time. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Network Convergence, Full Convergence, Convergence Event

Definition: Route Convergence for all routes in the FIB. Discussion: Full Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Full Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data traffic to destinations matching all route entries to the Next-best Egress Interface. Completion of Full Convergence is externally observable from the data plane when the Forwarding Rate of the data plane traffic on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the Offered Load. Completion of Full Convergence may or may not be sustained over time. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Network Convergence, Route Convergence, Convergence Event, Full Convergence Time, Convergence Recovery Instant

Definition: Full Convergence in all routers throughout the network. Discussion: Network Convergence includes all Route Convergence operations for all routers in the network following a Convergence Event. Completion of Network Convergence can be observed by recovery of the network Forwarding Rate to equal the Offered Load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no Blenders . Completion of Network Convergence may or may not be sustained over time. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Route Convergence, Full Convergence, Stale Forwarding

Definition: The time instant the Tester sends out the first data packet to the DUT. Discussion: If using the Loss-Derived Method or the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method to benchmark IGP convergence time, and the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant then the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Traffic Start Instant in order to measure the period of time between the Traffic Start Instant and Convergence Event Instant. Measurement Units: hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event Instant, Route-Specific Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Convergence Time.

Definition: The time instant that a Convergence Event occurs. Discussion: If the Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss on the Preferred Egress Interface, the Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant that the DUT begins to exhibit packet loss. The Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Convergence Event Instant if it is not observable from the data plane. Measurement Units: hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event

Definition: The time instant that Full Convergence has completed. Discussion: The Full Convergence completed state MUST be maintained for an interval of duration equal to the Sustained Convergence Validation Time in order to validate the Convergence Recovery Instant. The Convergence Recovery Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant the DUT forwards traffic to all destinations over the Next-Best Egress Interface. When using the Rate-Derived Method, the Convergence Recovery Instant falls within the Packet Sampling Interval preceding the first interval where the observed Forwarding Rate on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the Offered Load. Measurement Units: hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. Issues: None See Also: Sustained Convergence Validation Time, Full Convergence

Definition: The time instant the first route entry completes Route Convergence following a Convergence Event Discussion: Any route may be the first to complete Route Convergence. The First Route Convergence Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant that the first packet is received from the Next-Best Egress Interface. Measurement Units: hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. Issues: None See Also: Route Convergence

Definition: A time interval following a Convergence Event in which Forwarding Rate on the Preferred Egress Interface gradually reduces to zero. Discussion: The Forwarding Rate during a Convergence Event Transition may not decrease linearly. The Forwarding Rate observed on all DUT egress interfaces may or may not decrease to zero. The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Event Transition using the Rate-Derived Method. This is further discussed with the term "Rate-Derived Method". Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event, Rate-Derived Method

Definition: A time interval following the First Route Convergence Instant in which Forwarding Rate on the Next-Best Egress Interface gradually increases to equal the Offered Load. Discussion: The Forwarding Rate observed during a Convergence Recovery Transition may not increase linearly. The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery Transition using the Rate-Derived Method. This is further discussed with the term "Rate-Derived Method". Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Full Convergence,First Route Convergence Instant, Rate-Derived Method

Definition: An interface on the DUT. Discussion: A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure occurred directly on the DUT. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Remote Interface

Definition: An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly connected to any interface on the DUT. Discussion: A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure occurred on a neighbor router's interface that is not directly connected to the DUT. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Local Interface

Definition: The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the preferred next-hop. Discussion: The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior to a Convergence Event. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Next-Best Egress Interface

Definition: The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the second-best next-hop. Discussion: The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface after a Convergence Event. The Next-Best Egress Interface is of the same media type and link speed as the Preferred Egress Interface. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Preferred Egress Interface

Definition: The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from observing Forwarding Rate each Packet Sampling Interval. Discussion: shows an example of the Forwarding Rate change in time during convergence as observed when using the Rate-Derived Method.

----------\ /----------- | \ /<--- Convergence | \ Packet / Recovery | Convergence --->\ Loss / Transition | Event \ / | Transition \---------/ <-- Max Packet Loss | +---------------------------------------------------------> ^ ^ time Convergence First Route Event Instant Convergence Instant ]]>

The Offered Load SHOULD consist of a single Stream . If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for all Streams MUST be added together. The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset of all routes can be used if required. At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within each Packet Sampling Interval. The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations for the Rate-Derived Method. It may be difficult to identify the different convergence time instants in the Rate-Derived Convergence Graph. For example, it is possible that a Convergence Event causes the Forwarding Rate to drop to zero, while this may not be observed in the Forwarding Rate measurements if the Packet Sampling Interval is too large. Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include Forwarding Rate and packet loss. Rate-Derived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure convergence time benchmarks. To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp of the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe Forwarding Rate separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface. Since the Rate-Derived Method does not distinguish between individual traffic destinations, it SHOULD NOT be used for any route specific measurements. Therefor Rate-Derived Method SHOULD NOT be used to benchmark Route Loss of Connectivity Period. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Packet Sampling Interval, Convergence Event, Convergence Event Instant, Full Convergence

Definition: The method to calculate the Loss-Derived Convergence Time and Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks from the amount of packet loss. Discussion: The Offered Load SHOULD consist of a single Stream . If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for all Streams MUST be added together. The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset of all routes can be used if required. Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with Rate-Derived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss is collected after Full Convergence completion. To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss). To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe packet loss separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Convergence Packet Loss). Since Loss-Derived Method does not distinguish between traffic destinations and the packet loss statistics are only collected after Full Convergence completion, this method can only be used to measure average values over all routes. For these reasons Loss-Derived Method can only be used to benchmark Loss-Derived Convergence Time and Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period. Note that the Loss-Derived Method measures an average over all routes, including the routes that may not be impacted by the Convergence Event, such as routes via non-impacted members of ECMP or parallel links. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Packet Loss

Definition: The method to calculate the Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmark from the amount of packet loss during convergence for a specific route entry. Discussion: To benchmark Route-Specific Convergence Time, the Tester provides an Offered Load that consists of multiple Streams . Each Stream has a single destination address matching a different route entry, for all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes. Convergence Packet Loss is measured for each Stream separately. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with Rate-Derived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss for each Stream is collected after Full Convergence completion. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure convergence time benchmarks. To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss). To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe packet loss separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Convergence Packet Loss). Since Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method uses traffic streams to individual routes, it measures packet loss as it would be experienced by a network user. For this reason Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method is RECOMMENDED to measure Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks and Route Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Packet Loss

Definition: The time duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant as observed using the Rate-Derived Method. Discussion: Using the Rate-Derived Method, Full Convergence Time can be calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown in Equation 1.

Equation 1

The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester. For the testcases described in , it is expected that Full Convergence Time equals the maximum Route-Specific Convergence Time when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. It is not possible to measure Full Convergence Time using the Loss-Derived Method. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Full Convergence, Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method

Definition: The duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant as observed using the Rate-Derived Method. Discussion: Using the Rate-Derived Method, First Route Convergence Time can be calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant, as shown with Equation 2.

Equation 2

The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester. For the testcases described in , it is expected that First Route Convergence Time equals the minimum Route-Specific Convergence Time when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. It is not possible to measure First Route Convergence Time using the Loss-Derived Method. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method, First Route Convergence Instant

Definition: The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to be completed for a specific route, as calculated from the amount of packet loss during convergence for a single route entry. Discussion: Route-Specific Convergence Time can only be measured using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 3 is applied for each measured route. The calculation is equal to Equation 7 in .

Equation 3

If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Traffic Start Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 4 is applied for each measured route.

Equation 4

The Convergence Event Instant and Traffic Start Instant SHOULD be collected by the Tester. The Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum, maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be reported by comparing the results for the different route entries. It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when configuring a priority value for route entry(ies). Since multiple Route-Specific Convergence Times can be measured it is possible to have an array of results. The format for reporting Route-Specific Convergence Time is provided in . Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event, Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route Convergence

Definition: The average Route Convergence time for all routes in FIB, as calculated from the amount of packet loss during convergence. Discussion: Loss-Derived Convergence Time is measured using the Loss-Derived Method. If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 5 is applied.

Equation 5

If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 6 is applied.

Equation 6

The Convergence Event Instant and Traffic Start Instant SHOULD be collected by the Tester. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route Convergence

Definition: The time duration of traffic loss for a specific route entry following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as observed using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. Discussion: In general the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to the Route-Specific Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the Convergence Event is applied then the Route Loss of Connectivity Period will be smaller than the Route-Specific Convergence Time. This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure event. The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Route-Specific Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in . For the testcases described in the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period . When benchmarking Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for each route and Equation 7 is applied for each measured route entry. The calculation is equal to Equation 3 in .

Equation 7

Route Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method, Connectivity Packet Loss

Definition: The average time duration of traffic loss for all routes following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as observed using the Loss-Derived Method. Discussion: In general the Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to the Loss-Derived Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the Convergence Event is applied then the Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period will be smaller than the Loss-Derived Convergence Time. This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure event. The Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Loss-Derived Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in . For the testcases described in each route's Route Loss of Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period . When benchmarking Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for all routes and Equation 8 is applied. The calculation is equal to Equation 5 in .

Equation 8

Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using Loss-Derived Method. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Method, Connectivity Packet Loss

Definition: The occurrence of a planned or unplanned event in the network that will result in a change in the egress interface of the Device Under Test (DUT) for routed packets. Discussion: Convergence Events include but are not limited to link loss, routing protocol session loss, router failure, configuration change, and better next-hop learned via a routing protocol. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event Instant

Definition: The number of packets that should have been forwarded by a DUT under a constant Offered Load that were not forwarded due to lack of resources. Discussion: Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate" as defined in . The term "Frame Loss" is intended for Ethernet Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets. Measurement units: Number of offered packets that are not forwarded. Issues: None See Also: Convergence Packet Loss

Definition: The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completes, as observed on the Next-Best Egress Interface. Discussion: Convergence Packet Loss is observed on the Next-Best Egress Interface. It only needs to be observed for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss at Convergence Event Instant. Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. The magnitude of an acceptable Forwarding Delay is a parameter of the methodology. If a maximum acceptable Forwarding Delay threshold is applied it MUST be reported. Measurement Units: number of packets Issues: None See Also: Packet Loss, Full Convergence, Convergence Event, Connectivity Packet Loss

Definition: The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completes. Discussion: Connectivity Packet Loss is observed on all DUT egress interfaces. Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. The magnitude of an acceptable Forwarding Delay is a parameter of the methodology. If a maximum acceptable Forwarding Delay threshold is applied it MUST be reported. Measurement Units: number of packets Issues: None See Also: Packet Loss, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Event, Convergence Packet Loss

Definition: The interval at which the Tester (test equipment) polls to make measurements for arriving packets. Discussion: At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling Interval. Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include Forwarding Rate and received packets. Packet Sampling Interval can influence the convergence graph as observed with the Rate-Derived Method. This is particularly true when implementations complete Full Convergence in less time than the Packet Sampling Interval. The Convergence Event Instant and First Route Convergence Instant may not be easily identifiable and the Rate-Derived Method may produce a larger than actual convergence time. The recommended value for configuration of the Packet Sampling Interval when using the Rate-Derived Method is provided in . For the other benchmark methods the value of the Packet Sampling Interval does not contribute to the measurement accuracy. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Rate-Derived Method

Definition: The amount of time for which the completion of Full Convergence is maintained without additional packet loss. Discussion: The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to produce convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation in Forwarding Rate after the completion of Full Convergence is observed. The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation Time to be used is 5 seconds. The BMWG selected 5 seconds based upon RFC 2544 which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to arrive (this is the Forwarding Delay threshold for the last packet sent) and 5 seconds for DUT restabilization. Measurement Units: seconds Issues: None See Also: Full Convergence, Convergence Recovery Instant

Definition: Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist or to route entries with next-hops that are no longer preferred. Discussion: Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and can manifest as a "black-hole" or microloop that produces packet loss, or out-of-order packets, or delayed packets. Stale Forwarding can exist until Network Convergence is completed. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Network Convergence

Definition: The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route table is converging from a prior Convergence Event. Discussion: The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event MUST occur with different neighbors. A possible observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the routes of another neighbor are being installed. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Convergence Event

Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections above. The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management network. Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production networks.

This document requires no IANA considerations.

Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward, Peter De Vriendt and the BMWG for their contributions to this work.

Harvard University

33 Kirkland Street William James Hall 1232 Cambridge MA 02138 US +1 617 495 3864 SOB@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU

This memo discusses and defines a number of terms that are used in describing performance benchmarking tests and the results of such tests. The terms defined in this memo will be used in additional memos to define specific benchmarking tests and the suggested format to be used in reporting the results of each of the tests. This memo is a product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Harvard University

1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 - +1 617 495 3864 sob@harvard.edu

General keyword In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. Harvard University

1350 Mass. Ave Room 813 Cambridge MA 02138 US +1 617 495 3864 +1 617 496 8500 sob@harvard.edu

NetScout Systems

4 Westford Tech Park Drive Westford MA 01886 US +1 978 614 4116 +1 978 614 4004 mcquaidj@netscout.com

This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be used to describe the performance characteristics of a network interconnecting device. In addition to defining the tests this document also describes specific formats for reporting the results of the tests. Appendix A lists the tests and conditions that we believe should be included for specific cases and gives additional information about testing practices. Appendix B is a reference listing of maximum frame rates to be used with specific frame sizes on various media and Appendix C gives some examples of frame formats to be used in testing. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC)

550 King Street LKG 1-2/A19 Littleton MA 01460-1289 US +1 508 486 5009

This RFC specifies an integrated routing protocol, based on the OSI Intra-Domain IS-IS Routing Protocol, which may be used as an interior gateway protocol (IGP) to support TCP/IP as well as OSI. This allows a single routing protocol to be used to support pure IP environments, pure OSI environments, and dual environments. This specification was developed by the IS-IS working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force. The OSI IS-IS protocol has reached a mature state, and is ready for implementation and operational use. The most recent version of the OSI IS-IS protocol is contained in ISO DP 10589. The proposed standard for using IS-IS for support of TCP/IP will therefore make use of this version (with a minor bug correction, as discussed in Annex B). We expect that future versions of this proposed standard will upgrade to the final International Standard version of IS-IS when available. Comments should be sent to "isis@merit.edu". European Network Laboratories (ENL)

2 rue Helene Boucher 78286 Guyancourt Cedex France + 33 1 39 44 12 05 + 33 1 39 44 12 06 bob.mandeville@eunet.fr

Operations local area network Benchmarking Ascend Communications, Inc.

1 Robbins Road Westford MA 01886 978-952-1367 978-392-2075 jmoy@casc.com

Routing open shortest-path first protocol routing OSPF This memo documents version 2 of the OSPF protocol. OSPF is a link-state routing protocol. It is designed to be run internal to a single Autonomous System. Each OSPF router maintains an identical database describing the Autonomous System's topology. From this database, a routing table is calculated by constructing a shortest- path tree. OSPF recalculates routes quickly in the face of topological changes, utilizing a minimum of routing protocol traffic. OSPF provides support for equal-cost multipath. An area routing capability is provided, enabling an additional level of routing protection and a reduction in routing protocol traffic. In addition, all OSPF routing protocol exchanges are authenticated. The differences between this memo and RFC 2178 are explained in Appendix G. All differences are backward-compatible in nature. Implementations of this memo and of RFCs 2178, 1583, and 1247 will interoperate. Please send comments to ospf@gated.cornell.edu. This document describes terminology for the benchmarking of devices that implement traffic control using packet classification based on defined criteria. The terminology is to be applied to measurements made on the data plane to evaluate IP traffic control mechanisms. Rules for packet classification can be based on any field in the IP header, such as the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), or any field in the packet payload, such as port number. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The methodology is to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally observable (black box) data plane measurements. The methodology can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF. Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence This document discusses considerations for benchmarking Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence for any link-state IGP, such as Intermediate System-Intermediate System (ISIS) and Open-Shorted Path first (OSPF). A companion methodology document is to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally observable (black box) data plane measurements. A companion This document describes the modifications to OSPF to support version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). The fundamental mechanisms of OSPF (flooding, Designated Router (DR) election, area support, Short Path First (SPF) calculations, etc.) remain unchanged. However, some changes have been necessary, either due to changes in protocol semantics between IPv4 and IPv6, or simply to handle the increased address size of IPv6. These modifications will necessitate incrementing the protocol version from version 2 to version 3. OSPF for IPv6 is also referred to as OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3).</t><t> Changes between OSPF for IPv4, OSPF Version 2, and OSPF for IPv6 as described herein include the following. Addressing semantics have been removed from OSPF packets and the basic Link State Advertisements (LSAs). New LSAs have been created to carry IPv6 addresses and prefixes. OSPF now runs on a per-link basis rather than on a per-IP-subnet basis. Flooding scope for LSAs has been generalized. Authentication has been removed from the OSPF protocol and instead relies on IPv6's Authentication Header and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP).</t><t> Even with larger IPv6 addresses, most packets in OSPF for IPv6 are almost as compact as those in OSPF for IPv4. Most fields and packet- size limitations present in OSPF for IPv4 have been relaxed. In addition, option handling has been made more flexible.</t><t> All of OSPF for IPv4's optional capabilities, including demand circuit support and Not-So-Stubby Areas (NSSAs), are also supported in OSPF for IPv6. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 routing information using the IS-IS routing protocol. The described method utilizes two new TLVs: a reachability TLV and an interface address TLV to distribute the necessary IPv6 information throughout a routing domain. Using this method, one can route IPv6 along with IPv4 and OSI using a single intra-domain routing protocol. [STANDARDS TRACK]