[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-feher-bmwg-benchres-term) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4883

Benchmarking Working Group                             Gabor Feher, BUTE
INTERNET-DRAFT                                    Krisztian Nemeth, BUTE
Expiration Date: August 2004                           Andras Korn, BUTE
                                            Istvan Cselenyi, TeliaSonera

                                                           February 2004

  Benchmarking Terminology for Routers Supporting Resource Reservation
                 <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>

1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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

   This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

2. Table of contents

   1. Status of this Memo.............................................1
   2. Table of contents...............................................1
   3. Abstract........................................................2
   4. Introduction....................................................2
   5. Existing definitions............................................3
   6. Definition of Terms.............................................3
      6.1 Traffic Flow Types..........................................3
         6.1.1 Data Flow..............................................3
         6.1.2 Distinguished Data Flow................................4
         6.1.3 Best-Effort Data Flow..................................4
      6.2 Resource Reservation Protocol Basics........................5
         6.2.1 QoS Session............................................5
         6.2.2 Resource Reservation Protocol..........................6
         6.2.3 Resource Reservation Capable Router....................6
         6.2.4 Reservation State......................................6

Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

         6.2.5 Resource Reservation Protocol Orientation..............7
      6.3 Router Load Factors.........................................8
         6.3.1 Best-Effort Traffic Load Factor........................8
         6.3.2 Distinguished Traffic Load Factor......................9
         6.3.3 Session Load Factor....................................9
         6.3.4 Signaling Intensity Load Factor.......................10
         6.3.5 Signaling Burst Load Factor...........................10
      6.4 Performance Metrics........................................11
         6.4.1 Signaling Message Handling Time.......................11
         6.4.2 Distinguished Traffic Delay...........................12
         6.4.3 Best-effort Traffic Delay.............................12
         6.4.4 Signaling Message Loss................................13
         6.4.5 Session Maintenance Capacity..........................13
      6.5 Scalability Limit..........................................14
   7. Security Considerations........................................15
   8. Acknowledgements...............................................15
   9. References.....................................................15

3. Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to the
   benchmarking of resource reservation signaling of IntServ IP routers.
   These terms can be used in additional documents that define
   benchmarking methodologies for routers that support resource
   reservation or reporting formats for the benchmarking measurements.

4. Introduction

   Signaling based resource reservation (e.g. via RSVP [1]) is an
   important part of the different QoS provisioning approaches.
   Therefore network operators who are planning to deploy signaling
   based resource reservation may want to scrutinize the scalability
   limitations of reservation capable routers and the impact of
   signaling on their data forwarding performance.

   An objective way of quantifying the scalability constraints of QoS
   signaling is to perform measurements on routers that are capable of
   resource reservation. This document defines terminology for a
   specific set of tests that vendors or network operators can carry out
   to measure and report the signaling performance characteristics of
   router devices that support resource reservation protocols. The
   results of these tests provide comparable data for different
   products, and thus support the decision process before purchase.
   Moreover, these measurements provide input characteristics for the
   dimensioning of a network in which resources are provisioned
   dynamically by signaling. Finally, the tests are applicable for
   characterizing the impact of the resource reservation signaling on
   the forwarding performance of the routers.

   This benchmarking terminology document is based on the knowledge
   gained by examination of (and experimentation with) different
   resource reservation protocols: the IETF standard RSVP [1] and
   several experimental ones, such as YESSIR [5], ST2+ [6], SDP [7],

Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   Boomerang [8] and Ticket [9]. Some of these protocols are also
   analyzed in an IETF NSIS working group draft [10]. Although at the
   moment the authors are only aware of resource reservation capable
   router products that interpret RSVP, this document defines terms that
   are valid in general and not restricted to any of the above listed
   protocols.

   In order to avoid any confusion we would like to emphasize that this
   terminology considers only signaling protocols that provide IntServ
   resource reservation; the DiffServ world, for example, is out of our
   scope.

5. Existing definitions

   RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect
   Devices" [2] and RFC 2285 "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
   Devices" [3] contain discussions and definitions for a number of
   terms relevant to the benchmarking of signaling performance of
   reservation capable routers and should be consulted before attempting
   to make use of this document.

   Additionally, this document defines terminology in a way that is
   consistent with the terms used by Next Steps in Signaling working
   group laid out in [4].

   For the sake of clarity and continuity this document adopts the
   template for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242.
   Definitions are indexed and grouped together into different sections
   for ease of reference.

6. Definition of Terms

6.1 Traffic Flow Types

   This group of definitions describes traffic flow types forwarded by
   resource reservation capable routers.

6.1.1 Data Flow

   Definition:
     A data flow is a stream of data packets from one sender to one or
     more receivers, where each packet has a flow identifier unique to
     the flow.

   Discussion:
     The flow identifier can be an arbitrary subset of the packet
     header fields that uniquely distinguishes the flow from others.
     For example, the 5-tuple "source address; source port; destination
     address; destination port; protocol number" is commonly used for
     this purpose (where port number are applicable). For more comment
     on flow identification refer to [4].



Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

     The flow identification can be time- and/or resource-consuming,
     but this can sometimes be avoided as routers do not necessarily
     have to classify each packet. Instead, packets that should be
     classified by routers can be marked with special flags that
     routers understand. One existing marking approach is to use the
     ToS field of the IP header. Naturally, unmarked packets are not
     classified by routers and this way valuable resources can be
     saved.

6.1.2 Distinguished Data Flow

   Definition:
     Distinguished data flows are flows that resource reservation
     capable routers intentionally treat better or worse than
     "ordinary" data flows, according to a QoS agreement defined for
     the distinguished flow.

   Discussion:
     Packets of distinguished data flows are marked so that the routers
     that forward them know they require differentiated treatment.
     Routers classify these incoming packets and identify the data flow
     they belong to.

     The most common usage of the distinguished data flow is to get
     higher priority treatment than that of best-effort data flows (see
     the next definition). In these cases, a distinguished data flow is
     sometimes referred to as a "premium data flow". Nevertheless
     theoretically it is possible to require worse treatment than that
     of best-effort flows.

6.1.3 Best-Effort Data Flow

   Definition:
     Best-effort data flows are flows that are not treated in any
     special manner by resource reservation capable routers; thus,
     their packets are served (forwarded) in some default way.

   Discussion:
     "Best-effort" means that the router makes its best effort to
     forward the data packet quickly and safely, but does not guarantee
     anything (e.g. delay or loss probability). This type of traffic is
     the most common in today's Internet.

     The packets belonging to the best-effort data flows are not
     specially marked and thus they are not classified by the routers.









Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


6.2 Resource Reservation Protocol Basics

   This group of definitions applies to signaling based resource
   reservation protocols implemented by IP router devices.

6.2.1 QoS Session

   Definition:
     A QoS session is an application layer concept, shared between a
     set of network nodes, that pertains to a specific set of data
     flows. The information associated with the session includes the
     data required to identify the set of data flows in addition to a
     specification of the QoS treatment they require.

   Discussion:
     A QoS session is an end-to-end relationship. Whenever end-nodes
     decide to obtain special QoS treatment for their data
     communication, they set up a QoS session; as part of the process,
     they or their proxies make a QoS agreement with the network,
     specifying their data flows and the QoS treatment that the flows
     require.

     It is possible for the same QoS session to span multiple network
     domains that have different resource provisioning architectures.
     In this document, however, we only deal with the case where the
     QoS session is realized over an IntServ architecture. It is
     assumed that sessions will be established using signaling messages
     of a resource reservation protocol.

     QoS sessions must have unique identifiers; it must be possible to
     determine which QoS session a given signaling message pertains to.
     Therefore, each signaling message should include the identifier of
     its corresponding session. As an example, in the case of RSVP, the
     "session specification" identifies the QoS session plus refers to
     the data flow; the "flowspec" specifies the desired QoS treatment
     and the "filter spec" defines the subset of data packets in the
     data flow that receive the QoS defined by the flowspec.

     QoS sessions can be unicast or multicast depending on the number
     of participants. In a multicast group there can be several data
     traffic sources and destinations. Here the QoS agreement does not
     have to be the same for each branch of the multicast tree
     forwarding the data flow of the group. Instead, a dedicated
     network resource in a router can be shared among many traffic
     sources from the same multicast group (c.f. multicast reservation
     styles in the case of RSVP).

   Issues:
     Even though QoS sessions are considered to be unique, resource
     reservation capable routers might aggregate them and allocate
     network resources to these aggregated sessions at once. The
     aggregation can be based on similar data flow attributes (e.g.

Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

     similar destination addresses) or it can combine arbitrary
     sessions as well. While reservation aggregation significantly
     lightens the signaling processing task of a resource reservation
     capable router, it also requires the administration of the
     aggregated QoS sessions and might also lead to the violation of
     the quality guaranties referring to individual data flows within
     an aggregation [12].

6.2.2 Resource Reservation Protocol

   Definition:
     Resource reservation protocols define signaling messages and
     message processing rules used to control resource allocation in
     IntServ architectures.

   Discussion:
     It is the signaling messages of a resource reservation protocol
     that carry the information related to QoS sessions. This
     information includes a session identifier, the actual QoS
     parameters, and possibly flow descriptors.

     The message processing rules of the signaling protocols ensure
     that signaling messages reach all network nodes concerned. Some
     resource reservation protocols (e.g. RSVP) are only concerned with
     this, i.e. carrying the QoS-related information to all the
     appropriate network nodes, without being aware of its content.
     This latter approach allows changing the way the QoS parameters
     are described, and different kind of provisioning can be realized
     without the need to change the protocol itself.

6.2.3 Resource Reservation Capable Router

   Definition:
     A router is resource reservation capable (it supports resource
     reservation) if it is able to interpret signaling messages of a
     resource reservation protocol, and based on these messages is able
     to adjust the management of its flow classifiers and network
     resources so as to conform with the content of the messages.

   Discussion:
     Routers capture signaling messages and manipulate reservation
     states and/or reserved network resources according to the content
     of the messages. This ensures that the flows are treated as their
     specified QoS requirements indicate.

6.2.4 Reservation State

   Definition:
     A reservation state is the set of entries in the routerÆs memory
     that contain all relevant information about a given QoS session
     registered with the router.



Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   Discussion:
     States are needed because IntServ related resource reservation
     protocols require the routers to keep track of QoS session and
     data-flow-related metadata. The reservation state includes the
     parameters of the QoS treatment; the description of how and where
     to forward the incoming signaling messages; refresh timing
     information; etc.

     Based on how reservation states are stored in a reservation
     capable router, the routers can be categorized into two classes:

     Hard-state resource reservation protocols (e.g. ST2 [6]) require
     routers to store the reservation states permanently, established
     by a set-up signaling primitive, until the router is explicitly
     informed that the QoS session is canceled.

     There are also soft-state resource reservation capable routers,
     where there are no permanent reservation states, and each state
     has to be regularly refreshed by appropriate refresh signaling
     messages. If no refresh signaling message arrives during a certain
     period then the router stops the maintenance of the QoS session
     assuming that the end-points do not intend to keep the session up
     any longer or the communication lines are broken somewhere along
     the data path. This feature makes soft-state resource reservation
     capable routers more robust than hard-state routers, since no
     failures can cause resources to stay permanently stuck in the
     routers. (Note, it is still possible to have an explicit teardown
     message in soft-state protocols for quicker resource release.)

   Issues:
     Based on the initiating point of the refresh messages, soft-state
     resource reservation protocols can be divided into two groups.
     First, there are protocols where it is the responsibility of the
     end-points or their proxies to initiate refresh messages. These
     messages are forwarded along the path of the data flow refreshing
     the corresponding reservation states in each router affected by
     the flow. Secondly, there are other protocols, where routers and
     end-points have their own schedule for the reservation state
     refreshes and they signal these refreshes to the neighboring
     routers.

6.2.5 Resource Reservation Protocol Orientation

   Definition:
     The orientation of a resource reservation protocol tells which end
     of the protocol communication initiates the allocation of the
     network resources. Thus, the protocol can be sender or receiver
     initiated, depending on the location of the data flow source
     (sender) and destination (receiver) compared to the reservation
     initiator.




Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


   Discussion:
     In the case of sender-initiated protocols the resource reservation
     propagates the same directions as of the data flow. Consequently,
     in the case of receiver-initiated protocols the signaling messages
     reserving resources are forwarded backward on the path of the data
     flow. Due to the asymmetric routing nature of the Internet, in
     this latter case, the path of the desired data flow should be
     known before the reservation initiator would be able to send the
     resource allocation messages. For example in the case of RSVP, the
     RSVP PATH message, traveling from the data flow sources towards
     the destinations, first marks the path of the data flow on which
     the resource allocation messages will travel backward.

     This definition considers only protocols that reserve resources
     for just one data flow between the end-nodes. The reservation
     orientation of protocols reserving more than one data flow is not
     defined here.

   Issues:
     The location of the reservation initiator affects the basics of
     the resource reservation protocols and therefore it is an
     important design decision. In the case of multicast QoS sessions,
     the sender-oriented protocols require the traffic sources to
     maintain a list of receivers and send their allocation messages
     considering the different requirements of the receivers. Using
     multicast QoS sessions, the receiver-oriented protocols give the
     chance to the receivers to manage their own resource allocation
     requests and thus ease the task of the sources.

6.3 Router Load Factors

   The router load expressing the utilization of the device naturally
   affects the performance of the router. During the benchmarking
   process several load conditions have to be examined.

   This group of definitions describes different load components that
   impact only a specific part of the resource reservation capable
   router.

6.3.1 Best-Effort Traffic Load Factor

   Definition:
     The best-effort traffic load factor is defined as the volume of
     the best-effort data traffic that traverses the router in a
     second.

   Discussion:
     Forwarding the best-effort data packets, which requires obtaining
     the routing information and transferring the data packet between
     network interfaces, requires processing power, which is related to
     this load factor.


Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   Issues:
     The same amount of data segmented into differently sized packets
     causes different amounts of load on the router, which has to be
     considered during the benchmarking measurements.

   Measurement unit:
     bits per second (bps)

6.3.2 Distinguished Traffic Load Factor

   Definition:
     The distinguished traffic load factor is defined as the volume of
     the distinguished data traffic that traverses the router in a
     second.

   Discussion:
     Similarly to the best-effort data, forwarding the distinguished
     data packets requires obtaining the routing information and
     transferring the data packet between network interfaces. However,
     in this case packets have to be classified as well, which requires
     additional processing capacity.

   Issues:
     Just as in the best-effort case, the same amount of data segmented
     into differently sized packets causes different amounts of load on
     the router, which has to be considered during the benchmarking
     measurements.

   Measurement unit:
     bits per second (bps)

6.3.3 Session Load Factor

   Definition:
     The session load factor is the number of QoS sessions the router
     is keeping track of.

   Discussion:
     Resource reservation capable routers maintain reservation states
     keeping track of the QoS sessions. Obviously, the more reservation
     states are registered with the router, the more complex the
     traffic classification becomes, and the longer time it takes to
     look up the corresponding resource reservation sate. Moreover, not
     only the traffic flows, but also the signaling messages that
     control the reservation states have to be identified first, before
     taking any other action, and this kind of classification also
     means extra work for the router.

     In the case of soft-state resource reservation protocols, the
     session load also affects reservation state maintenance. For
     example, the supervision of timers that watchdog the reservation
     state refreshes may cause further load on the router.


Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004              [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   Measurement unit:
     This factor is measured by the number of QoS sessions impacting
     the router, thus it has no unit.

6.3.4 Signaling Intensity Load Factor

   Definition:
     The signaling intensity load factor is defined as the number of
     signaling messages that hit the router during one second.

   Discussion:
     The processing of signaling messages requires processor power that
     raises the load on the control plane of the router.

     In routers where the control plane and the data plane are not
     totally independent (e.g. certain parts of the tasks are served by
     the same processor; or the architecture has common memory buffers,
     transfer buses or any other resources) the signaling load can have
     an impact on the router's packet forwarding performance as well.

     Naturally, just as everywhere else in this document, the term
     "signaling messages" refer only to the resource reservation
     protocol related primitives.

   Issues:
     Most of the resource reservation protocols have several protocol
     primitives realized by different signaling message types. Each of
     these message types may require a different amount of processing
     power from the router. This fact has to be considered during the
     benchmarking measurements.

   Measurement unit:
     The unit of this factor is 1/second.

6.3.5 Signaling Burst Load Factor

   Definition:
     The signaling burst load factor is defined as the number of
     signaling messages that arrive to one input port of the router
     back-to-back ([2]), causing persistent load on the signaling
     message handler.

   Discussion:
     The definition focuses on one input port only and does not
     consider the traffic arriving at the other input ports.
     As a consequence, a set of messages arriving at different ports,
     but with such a timing that would be a burst if the messages
     arrived at the same port, is not considered to be a burst. The
     reason for this is that it is not guaranteed at a black-box test
     that this would have the same effect on the router as a burst
     (incoming at the same interface) has.

     This definition conforms to the burst definition given in [3].

Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


   Issues:
     Most of the resource reservation protocols have several protocol
     primitives realized by different signaling message types. Bursts
     built up of different messages may have a different effect on the
     router. Consequently, during measurements the content of the burst
     has to be considered as well.

   Measurement unit:
     This load factor is measured by the number of messages in the
     burst, thus it has no unit.

6.4 Performance Metrics

   This group of definitions is a collection of measurable quantities
   that describe the impact the different load components have on the
   router.

6.4.1 Signaling Message Handling Time

   Definition:
     The signaling message handling time (or, in short, signal handling
     time) is the latency ([2]) of a signaling message passing through
     the router.

   Discussion:
     The router interprets the signaling messages, acts based on their
     content and usually forwards them in an unmodified or modified
     form. Thus the message handling time is usually longer than the
     forwarding time of data packets of the same size.

     There might be signaling message primitives, however, that are
     drained or generated by the router, like certain refresh messages.
     In this case the signal handling time is immeasurable, therefore
     it is not defined for such messages.

     In the case of signaling messages that carry information
     pertaining to multicast flows, the router might issue multiple
     signaling messages after processing them. In this case, by
     definition, the signal handling time is the latency between the
     incoming signaling message and the last outgoing signaling message
     related to the received one.

     The signal handling time is an important characteristic as it
     directly affects the setup time of a QoS session.

   Issues:
     The signal handling time may be dependent on the type of the
     signaling message. For example, it usually takes a shorter time
     for the router to remove a reservation state than to set it up.
     This fact has to be considered during the benchmarking process.



Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   Measurement unit:
     The unit of the signaling message handling time is the second.

6.4.2 Distinguished Traffic Delay

   Definition:
     Distinguished traffic delay is the latency ([2]) of a
     distinguished data packet passing through the tested router
     device.

   Discussion:
     Distinguished traffic packets must be classified first in order to
     assign the network resources dedicated to the flow. The time of
     the classification is added to the usual forwarding time
     (including the queuing) that a router would spend on the packet
     without any resource reservation capability. This classification
     procedure might be quite time consuming in routers with vast
     amounts of reservation states.

     There are routers where the processing power is shared between the
     control plane and the data plane. This means that the processing
     of signaling messages may have an impact on the data forwarding
     performance of the router. In this case the distinguished traffic
     delay metric also indicates the influence the two planes have on
     each other.

   Issues:
     Queuing of the incoming data packets in routers can bias this
     metric, so the measurement procedures have to consider this
     effect.

   Measurement unit:
     The unit of the distinguished traffic delay is the second.

6.4.3 Best-effort Traffic Delay

   Definition:
     Best-effort traffic delay is the latency of a best-effort data
     packet traversing the tested router device.

   Discussion:
     If the processing power of the router is shared between the
     control and data plane, then the processing of signaling messages
     may have an impact on the data forwarding performance of the
     router. In this case the best-effort traffic delay metric is an
     indicator of the influence the two planes have on each other.

   Issues:
     Queuing of the incoming data packets in routers can bias this
     metric as well, so measurement procedures have to consider this
     effect.



Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


   Measurement unit:
     The unit of the best-effort traffic delay is the second.

6.4.4 Signaling Message Loss

   Definition:
     Signaling message loss is the ratio of the actual and the expected
     number of signaling messages leaving a resource reservation
     capable router, subtracted from one.

   Discussion:
     This definition gives the same value as the ratio of the lost and
     the expected messages. The reason for choosing the given
     definition is that the number of lost messages cannot be measured
     directly.

     There are certain types of signaling messages that are required to
     be forwarded by reservation capable routers as soon as their
     processing is finished. However, due to the high router load or
     for other reasons, the forwarding or even the processing of these
     signaling messages might be canceled. There are other kinds of
     signaling messages, that should have been generated by the router,
     without any corresponding incoming message. In case of high router
     load, it is possible that such a message never leaves the router.
     To characterize these situations we introduce the signaling
     message loss metric expressing the ratio of the signaling messages
     that actually have left the router and those ones that were
     expected to leave the router.

     Since the most frequent reason for signaling message loss is high
     router load, this metric is suitable for sounding out the
     scalability limits of resource reservation capable routers.

     During the measurements one must be able to determine whether a
     signaling message is still in the queues of the router or if it
     has already been dropped. For this reason we define a signaling
     message as lost if no forwarded signaling message is emitted
     within a reasonably long time period. This period is defined along
     with the benchmarking methodology.

   Measurement unit:
     This measure has no unit; it is expressed as a real number, which
     is between zero and one, including the limits.

6.4.5 Session Maintenance Capacity

   Definition:
     The session maintenance capacity metric is used in the case of
     soft-state resource reservation protocols only. It is defined as
     the ratio of the number of QoS sessions actually maintained and
     the number of QoS sessions that should have been maintained during
     one refresh period.

Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


   Discussion:
     For soft-state protocols maintaining a QoS session means
     refreshing the reservation states associated with it.

     When a soft-state resource reservation capable router is
     overloaded, it may happen that the router is not able to refresh
     all the registered reservation states, because it does not have
     the time to run the state refresh task. In this case sooner or
     later some QoS sessions will be lost even if the endpoints still
     require their maintenance.

     The session maintenance capacity sounds out the maximal number of
     QoS sessions that the router is capable of maintaining.

   Issues:
     The actual process of session maintenance is protocol and
     implementation dependent, so is the method to examine that a
     session is maintained or not.

     In the case of soft-state resource reservation protocols a router
     that fails to maintain a QoS session may not emit refresh
     signaling messages either. This has direct consequences on the
     signaling message loss metric.

   Measurement unit:
     This measure has no unit; it is expressed as a real number, which
     is between zero and one (including the limits).

6.5 Scalability Limit

   Definition:
     The scalability limit of the router is the critical load
     condition, when the router is still in the steady state but the
     smallest amount of additional load would drive it to the
     overloaded state.

   Discussion:
     All existing routers have finite buffer memory and finite
     processing power. In the steady state of the router, the buffer
     memories are not fully utilized and the processing power is enough
     to cope with all tasks running on the router. As the router load
     increases the buffers are starting to fill up and/or the router
     has to postpone more and more tasks. However, there is a certain
     point where no more buffer memory is available, or a task cannot
     be postponed any longer; thus the router is forced to drop a
     packet or an activity. This is the overloaded state of the
     resource reservation capable router, which can be recognized by
     the fact that some kind of data (signaling or packet) or task
     (e.g. QoS session maintenance) loss occurs.




Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004


7. Security Considerations

   As this document only provides terminology and describes neither a
   protocol nor an implementation or a procedure, there are no security
   considerations associated with it.

8. Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank the following individuals for their help in
   the research and development work, which contributed to form this
   document: Joakim Bergkvist and Norbert Vegh from Telia Research AB,
   Sweden; Balazs Szabo, Gabor Kovacs and Peter Vary from the High Speed
   Networks Laboratory, Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
   Hungary.

9. References

   [1]  B. Braden, Ed., et. al., "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) -
        Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [2]  S. Bradner, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
        Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991

   [3]  R. Mandeville, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
        Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998

   [4]  R. Hancock (ed.), et. al., "Next Steps in Signaling: Framework",
        IETF draft: draft-ietf-nsis-fw-05.txt (work in progress),
        October 2003

   [5]  P. Pan, H. Schulzrinne, "YESSIR: A Simple Reservation Mechanism
        for the Internet", Computer Communication Review, on-line
        version, volume 29, number 2, April 1999

   [6]  L. Delgrossi, L. Berger, "Internet Stream Protocol Version 2
        (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+", RFC 1819, August
        1995

   [7]  P. White, J. Crowcroft, "A Case for Dynamic Sender-Initiated
        Reservation in the Internet", Journal on High Speed Networks,
        Special Issue on QoS Routing and Signaling, Vol. 7 No. 2, 1998

   [8]  J. Bergkvist, D. Ahlard, T. Engborg, K. Nemeth, G. Feher, I.
        Csel‰nyi, M. Maliosz, "Boomerang : A Simple Protocol for
        Resource Reservation in IP Networks", Vancouver, IEEE Real-Time
        Technology and Applications Symposium, June 1999

   [9]  A. Eriksson, C. Gehrmann, "Robust and Secure Light-weight
        Resource Reservation for Unicast IP Traffic", International WS
        on QoS'98, IWQoS'98, May 18-20, 1998



Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT   <draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-04.txt>     January 2004

   [10] J. Manner (ed.), X. Fu, Ping Pan, "Analysis of Existing Quality
        of Service Signaling Protocols", IETF draft: draft-ietf-nsis-
        signalling-analysis-03.txt (work in progress), October 2003

   [11] J. Wroclawski, "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services",
        RFC 2210, September 1997

   [12] F. Baker,C. Iturralde, F. Le Faucheur, B. Davie, "Aggregation of
        RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175, September 2001

   Authors' Addresses

   Gabor Feher
   Budapest University of Technology and Economics
   Department of Telecommunications and Mediainformatics
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 2, H-1117, Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36 1 463-1538
   Email: Gabor.Feher@tmit.bme.hu

   Krisztian Nemeth
   Budapest University of Technology and Economics
   Department of Telecommunications and Mediainformatics
   Magyar Tudosok krt. 2, H-1117, Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36 1 463-1565
   Email: Krisztian.Nemeth@tmit.bme.hu

   Andras Korn
   Budapest University of Technology and Economics
   Institute of Mathematics, Department of Analysis
   Egry Jozsef u. 2, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36 1 463-2475
   Email: Korn@math.bme.hu

   Istvan Cselenyi
   TeliaSonera International Carrier
   Vaci ut 22-24, H-1132 Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36 1 412-2705
   Email: Istvan.Cselenyi@teliasonera.com
















Feher, Nemeth, Korn, Cselenyi  Expires August 2004             [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/