One document matched: draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-07.txt
Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: April 2006
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Brent Imhoff
October 2005
Benchmarking Methodology for
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
<draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
Convergence as described in Applicability document [1] and
Terminology document [2]. The methodology and terminology are
to be used for benchmarking route convergence and can be applied
to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4]. The terms
used in the procedures provided within this document are
defined in [2].
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...............................................2
2. Existing definitions .......................................2
3. Test Setup..................................................3
3.1 Test Topologies............................................3
3.2 Test Considerations........................................4
3.3 Reporting Format...........................................6
4. Test Cases..................................................7
4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure............................7
4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure...............7
4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure............7
4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure..............8
4.2 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Failure.................9
4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure...................10
4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................10
4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................11
4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........12
4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure.........12
5. IANA Considerations.........................................13
6. Security Considerations.....................................13
7. Normative References........................................13
8. Author's Address............................................13
1. Introduction
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
Convergence. The applicability of this testing is described in
[1] and the new terminology that it introduces is defined in [2].
Service Providers use IGP Convergence time as a key metric of
router design and architecture. Customers of Service Providers
observe convergence time by packet loss, so IGP Route Convergence
is considered a Direct Measure of Quality (DMOQ). The test cases
in this document are black-box tests that emulate the network
events that cause route convergence, as described in [1]. The
black-box test designs benchmark the data plane accounting for
all of the factors contributing to convergence time, as discussed
in [1]. The methodology (and terminology) for benchmarking route
convergence can be applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3]
and OSPF [4]. These methodologies apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic
as well as IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs.
2. Existing definitions
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
[Br97]. 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.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3. Test Setup
3.1 Test Topologies
Figure 1 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence due
to local Convergence Events such as SONET Link Failure, Layer 2
Session Failure, IGP Adjacency Failure, Route Withdrawal, and route
cost change. These test cases discussed in section 4 provide route
convergence times that account for the Event Detection time, SPF
Processing time, and FIB Update time. These times are measured
by observing packet loss in the data plane.
--------- Ingress Interface ---------
| |<--------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | Preferred Egress Interface | |
| DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester|
| | | |
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| |
| | Next-Best Egress Interface | |
--------- ---------
Figure 1. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology for Local Changes
Figure 2 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
time due to remote changes in the network topology. These times are
measured by observing packet loss in the data plane. In this
topology the three routers are considered a System Under Test (SUT).
NOTE: All routers in the SUT must be the same model and identically
configured.
----- ---------
| | Preferred | |
----- |R2 |---------------------->| |
| |-->| | Egress Interface | |
| | ----- | |
|R1 | |Tester |
| | ----- | |
| |-->| | Next-Best | |
----- |R3 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| |
^ | | Egress Interface | |
| ----- ---------
| |
|--------------------------------------
Ingress Interface
Figure 2. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
for Remote Changes
Figure 3 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
time with members of an Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Set. These
times are measured by observing packet loss in the data plane.
In thistopology, the DUT is configured with each Egress interface
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
as a member of an ECMP set and the Tester emulates multiple
next-hop routers (emulates one router for each member).
--------- Ingress Interface ---------
| |<--------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | ECMP Set Interface 1 | |
| DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester|
| | . | |
| | . | |
| | . | |
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| |
| | ECMP Set Interface N | |
--------- ---------
Figure 3. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
for ECMP Convergence
Figure 4 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
time with members of a Parallel Link. These times are measured by
observing packet loss in the data plane. In this topology, the DUT
is configured with each Egress interface as a member of a Parallel
Link and the Tester emulates the single next-hop router.
--------- Ingress Interface ---------
| |<--------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | Parallel Link Interface 1 | |
| DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester|
| | . | |
| | . | |
| | . | |
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| |
| | Parallel Link Interface N | |
--------- ---------
Figure 4. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
for Parallel Link Convergence
3.2 Test Considerations
3.2.1 IGP Selection
The test cases described in section 4 can be used for ISIS or
OSPF. The Route Convergence test methodology for both is
identical. The IGP adjacencies are established on the Preferred
Egress Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface.
3.2.2 BGP Configuration
The obtained results for IGP Route Convergence may vary if
BGP routes are installed. It is recommended that the IGP
Convergence times be benchmarked without BGP routes installed.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.2.3 IGP Route Scaling
The number of IGP routes will impact the measured IGP Route
Convergence because convergence for the entire IGP route table is
measured. For results similar to those that would be observed in
an operational network it is recommended that the number of
installed routes closely approximate that for routers in the
network. The number of areas (for OSPF) and levels (for ISIS) can
impact the benchmark results.
3.2.4 Timers
There are some timers that will impact the measured IGP Convergence
time. The following timers should be configured to the minimum value
prior to beginning execution of the test cases:
Timer Recommended Value
----- -----------------
Failure Indication Delay <10milliseconds
IGP Hello Timer 1 second
IGP Dead-Interval 3 seconds
LSA Generation Delay 0
LSA Flood Packet Pacing 0
LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing 0
SPF Delay 0
3.2.5 Convergence Time Metrics
The recommended value for the Packet Sampling Interval [2] is
100 milliseconds. Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] is the
preferred benchmark for IGP Route Convergence. This benchmark
must always be reported when the Packet Sampling Interval [2]
<= 100 milliseconds. If the test equipment does not permit
the Packet Sampling Interval to be set as low as 100 msec,
then both the Rate-Derived Convergence Time and Loss-Derived
Convergence Time [2] must be reported. The Packet Sampling
Interval value MUST be the smallest measurable convergence
time.
3.2.6 Interface Types
All test cases in this methodology document may be executed with
any interface type. All interfaces MUST be the same media and
Throughout [5,6] for each test case. Media and protocols MUST
be configured for minimum failure detection delay to minimize
the contribution to the measured Convergence time. For example,
configure SONET with minimum carrier-loss-delay or Bi-directional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) [7].
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.2.7 Offered Load
The offered Load MUST be the Throughput of the device as defined
in [5] and benchmarked in [6] at a fixed packet size. The packet
size is selectable and MUST be recorded. The Throughput MUST be
measured at the Preferred Egress Interface and the Next-Best
Egress Interface. The duration of offered load MUST be greater
than the convergence time. The destination addresses for the
offered load MUST be distributed such that all routes are matched.
This enables Full Convergence [2] to be observed.
3.3 Reporting Format
For each test case, it is recommended that the following reporting
format be completed:
Parameter Units
--------- -----
IGP (ISIS or OSPF)
Interface Type (GigE, POS, ATM, etc.)
Packet Size offered to DUT bytes
IGP Routes advertised to DUT number of IGP routes
Packet Sampling Interval on Tester seconds or milliseconds
IGP Timer Values configured on DUT
SONET Failure Indication Delay seconds or milliseconds
IGP Hello Timer seconds or milliseconds
IGP Dead-Interval seconds or milliseconds
LSA Generation Delay seconds or milliseconds
LSA Flood Packet Pacing seconds or milliseconds
LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing seconds or milliseconds
SPF Delay seconds or milliseconds
Benchmarks
Rate-Derived Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds
Loss-Derived Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds
Restoration Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
4. Test Cases
4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure
4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
failure event at the DUT's Local Interface.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of the
routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the preferred
next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove link on DUT's Local Interface [2] by performing an
administrative shutdown of the interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore link on DUT's Local Interface by administratively
enabling the interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back
to the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
failure event at the Tester's Neighbor Interface.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
preferred next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
DUT' s Preferred Egress Interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back to
the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Remote Interface
Failure event.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to SUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 2. Set the cost of the
routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the preferred
next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
3. Verify traffic is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
SUT' s Preferred Egress Interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as SUT detects
the link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back to
the Preferred Egress Interface.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the
link failure failure indication, LSA/LSP Flood Packet Pacing,
LSA/LSP Retransmission Packet Pacing, LSA/LSP Generation
time, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution Time, Tree
Build Time, and Hardware Update Time. The additional
convergence time contributed by LSP Propagation can be
obtained by subtracting the Rate-Derived Convergence Time
measured in 4.1.2 (Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface
Failure) from the Rate-Derived Convergence Time measured in
this test case.
4.2 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local Layer 2 Session
failure event.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
the routes so that the IGP routes along the Preferred Egress
Interface is the preferred next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove Layer 2 session from Tester's Neighbor Interface [2]
connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
Layer 2 session down event and converges all IGP routes and
traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Restore Layer 2 session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Layer 2
failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local IGP Adjacency
failure event.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
preferred next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove IGP adjacency from Tester's Neighbor Interface [2]
connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
IGP session failure event and converges all IGP routes and
traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the IGP
Hello Interval, IGP Dead Interval, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime,
SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to Route Withdrawal.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
preferred next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Tester withdraws all IGP routes from DUT's Local Interface
on Preferred Egress Interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
Layer 2 session down event and converges all IGP routes and
traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT converges all
IGP routes and traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is the SPF Processing and FIB
Update time as influenced by the SPF delay, SPF Holdtime,
SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to route cost change.
Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
preferred next-hop.
2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT
on Ingress Interface [2].
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Tester increases cost for all IGP routes at DUT's Preferred
Egress Interface so that the Next-Best Egress Interface
has lower cost and becomes preferred path.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
cost change event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
7. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface
with original lower cost metric.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT converges all
IGP routes and traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results
There should be no measured packet loss for this case.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
failure event of an ECMP Member.
Procedure
1. Configure ECMP Set as shown in Figure 3.
2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
each ECMP member.
3. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
4. Verify traffic routed over all members of ECMP Set.
5. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
one of the DUT's ECMP member interfaces.
6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
over the other ECMP members.
7. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
DUT's ECMP member interface.
9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution
of traffic over the restored ECMP member.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure
Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link failure
event for a Member of a Parallel Link. The links can be used for
data Load Balancing
Procedure
1. Configure Parallel Link as shown in Figure 4.
2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
each Parallel Link member.
3. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size
to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Ingress Interface [2].
4. Verify traffic routed over all members of Parallel Link.
5. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
one of the DUT's Parallel Link member interfaces.
6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the other Parallel Link members.
7. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
DUT's Parallel Link member interface.
9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution
of traffic over the restored Parallel Link member.
Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update
Time.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
the Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
networks.
7. Normative References
[1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-08, work
in progress, October 2005.
[2] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-08, work
in progress, October 2005
[3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, IETF, December 1990.
[4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.
[5] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, IETF, October 1991.
[6] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, IETF, March 1999.
[7] Katz, D. and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-02.txt, work in progress, IETF,
March 2005.
8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Methodology for October 2005
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Brent Imhoff
USA
EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Poretsky and Imhoff [Page 14]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:23:36 |