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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 4689

     Network Working Group                       Scott Poretsky
     INTERNET-DRAFT                              Reef Point Systems
     Expires in: December 2006
                                                 Jerry Perser
                                                 Veriwave

                                                 Shobha Erramilli
                                                 Telcordia

                                                 Sumit Khurana
                                                 Telcordia

                                                 June 2006

              Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer
                     Traffic Control Mechanisms

                  <draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-13.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 (2006).

Abstract
     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 DSCP, or field in the packet
     payload, such as port number.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                  [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     Table of Contents
        1. Introduction .............................................. 3
        2. Existing definitions ...................................... 3
        3. Term definitions............................................4
        3.1 Configuration Terms
          3.1.1 Classification.........................................4
          3.1.2 Codepoint Set..........................................4
          3.1.3 Forwarding Congestion..................................5
          3.1.4 Congestion Management..................................6
          3.1.5 Flow...................................................7
        3.2 Measurement Terms
          3.2.1 Forwarding Capacity....................................7
          3.2.2 Conforming Packet......................................8
          3.2.3 Nonconforming Packet...................................9
          3.2.4 Forwarding Delay.......................................9
          3.2.5 Jitter................................................11
          3.2.6 Undifferentiated Response.............................11
        3.3 Sequence Tracking
          3.3.1 In-sequence Packet....................................12
          3.3.2 Out-of-order Packet...................................12
          3.3.3 Duplicate Packet......................................13
          3.3.4 Stream................................................14
          3.3.5 Test Sequence number .................................15
        3.4 Vectors...................................................15
          3.4.1 Intended Vector.......................................15
          3.4.2 Offered Vector........................................16
          3.4.3 Expected Vectors......................................16
          3.4.4 Output Vectors........................................23
        4. IANA Considerations........................................31
        5. Security Considerations....................................31
        6. Acknowledgments............................................31
        7. References.................................................32
        8. Author's Address...........................................33
        9. Full Copyright Statement...................................34

1. Introduction

     New terminology is needed because most existing measurements
     assume the absence of congestion and only a single per-hop-
     behavior.  This document introduces several new terms that will
     allow measurements to be taken during periods of congestion.

     Another key difference from existing terminology is the definition
     of measurements as observed on egress as well as ingress of a
     device/system under test.  Again, the existence of congestion
     requires the addition of egress measurements as well as those
     taken on ingress; without observing traffic leaving a
     device/system it is not possible to say whether traffic-control
     mechanisms effectively dealt with congestion.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     The principal measurements introduced in this document are vectors
     for rate, delay, and jitter, all of which can be observed with or
     without congestion of the Device Under Test (DUT)/ System Under
     Test (SUT). This document describes only those terms relevant to
     measuring behavior of a DUT or SUT at the Egress during periods of
     congestion.  End-to-end and service-level measurements are beyond
     the scope of this document.

2.  Existing definitions
     RFC 1224 "Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts"
     [St91] is used for 'Time with fine enough units to distinguish
     between two events'

     RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect
     Devices" and RFC 2285 "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
     Devices" should be consulted before attempting to make use of this
     document.

     RFC 2474 "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
     Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers" section 2, contains
     discussions of a number of terms relevant to network-layer traffic
     control mechanisms and should also be consulted.

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

   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.

   2.1 Frequently Used Acronyms
      DA   Destination Address
      DS   DiffServ
      DSCP DiffServ Code Point
      DUT  Device Under Test
      IP   Internet Protocol
      PHB  Per Hop Behavior
      SA   Source Address
      SUT  System Under Test

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

3. Term definitions

     3.1 Configuration Terms

     3.1.1 Classification

        Definition:
          Selection of packets according to defined rules.

        Discussion:
          Classification determines the per-hop behaviors and traffic
          conditioning functions such as shaping and dropping that
          are to be applied to the packet.

          Classification of packets can be made based on the DS field
          or IP Precedence in the packet header.  Classification can
          be based on other IP header fields such as IP Source
          Address (SA), Destination Address (DA), and protocol, or
          fields in the packet payload such as port number.
          Classification can also be based on ingress interface.
          It is possible to classify based on Multi-Field (MF)
          criteria such as IP source and destination addresses,
          protocol and port number.

        Measurement units: n/a

        See Also: None

     3.1.2 Codepoint Set

        Definition:
          The set of all DS Code-points or IP precedence values used
          during the test duration.

        Discussion:
          Describes all the code-point markings associated with packets
          that are input to the DUT/SUT.  For each entry in the
          codepoint set, there are associated vectors describing the
          rate of traffic, delay, loss, or jitter containing that
          particular DSCP or IP precedence value.

          The treatment that a packet belonging to a particular code-
          point gets is subject to the DUT classifying packets to map
          to the correct PHB.  Moreover, the forwarding treatment in
          general is also dependent on the complete set of offered
          vectors.

        Measurement Units: n/a

        See Also: None



Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.1.3 Forwarding Congestion

        Definition:
          A condition in which one or more egress interfaces are
          offered more packets than are forwarded.

        Discussion:
          This condition is a superset of the overload definition
          [Ma98].  Overload [Ma98] deals with overloading input and
          output interfaces beyond the maximum transmission allowed by
          the medium.  Forwarding congestion does not assume ingress
          interface overload as the only source of overload on output
          interfaces.

          Another difference between Forwarding Congestion and overload
          occurs when the SUT comprises multiple elements, in that
          Forwarding Congestion may occur at multiple points.  Consider
          a SUT comprising multiple edge devices exchanging traffic
          with a single core device.  Depending on traffic patterns,
          the edge devices may induce Forwarding Congestion on multiple
          egress interfaces on the core device.

          Throughput [Br91] defines the lower boundary of Forwarding
          Congestion.  Throughput is the maximum offered rate with no
          Forwarding Congestion.  At offered rates above throughput,
          the DUT/SUT is considered to be in a state of Forwarding
          Congestion.

          Packet Loss, not increased Forwarding Delay, is the
          external observable metric used to indicate the condition
          of Forwarding Congestion.  Packet Loss is a deterministic
          indicator of Forwarding Congestion.  The condition of
          increased Forwarding Delay without Packet Loss is an
          indicator of Forwarding Congestion known as Incipient
          Congestion.   Incipient Congestion is a non-deterministic
          indicator of Forwarding Congestion [Fl93].  As stated in
          [Ec98], RED [Br98] detects incipient congestion before the
          buffer overflows, but the current Internet environment is
          limited to packet loss as the mechanism for indicating
          congestion to the end-nodes. [Ra99] implies that it is
          impractical to build a black-box test to observe Incipient
          Congestion.  [Ra99] instead introduces Explicit Congestion
          Notification (ECN) as a deterministic Black-Box method for
          observing Incipient Congestion.  [Ra99] is an Experimental
          RFC with limited deployment, so ECN is not used for this
          particular methodology.  For the purpose of "black-box"
          testing a DUT/SUT, this methodology uses Packet Loss as the
          indicator of Forwarding Congestion.




Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

          Ingress observations alone are not sufficient to cover all
          cases in which Forwarding Congestion may occur.  A device
          with an infinite amount of memory could buffer an infinite
          number of packets, and eventually forward all of them.
          However, these packets may or may not be forwarded during
          the test duration.  Congestion Collapse [Na84] is defined
          as the state in which buffers are full and all arriving
          packets MUST be dropped across the network.  Even though
          ingress interfaces accept all packets without loss,
          Forwarding Congestion is present in this hypothetical
          device.

          The definition presented here explicitly defines
          Forwarding Congestion as an event observable on egress
          interfaces.  Regardless of internal architecture, any
          device exhibiting Packet Loss on one or more egress
          interfaces is experiencing Forwarding Congestion.

        Measurement units:
          None

        See Also:
          Gateway Congestion Control Survey [Ma91]

     3.1.4 Congestion Management

        Definition:
          An implementation of one or more per-hop-behaviors to avoid
          or minimize the condition of congestion.

        Discussion:
          Congestion management may seek either to control congestion
          or avoid it altogether through Classification.

          Congestion avoidance mechanisms seek to prevent congestion
          before it actually occurs.

          Congestion control mechanisms give one or more flows (with a
          discrete IP Precedence or DSCP value) preferential treatment
          over other classes during periods of congestion.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
           Classification







Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.1.5 Flow

        Definition:
          A flow is a one or more of packets sharing a common intended
          pair of ingress and egress interfaces.

        Discussion:
          Packets are grouped by the ingress and egress interfaces they
          use on a given DUT/SUT.

          A flow can contain multiple source IP addresses and/or
          destination IP addresses.  All packets in a flow MUST enter
          on the same ingress interface and exit on the same egress
          interface, and have some common network layer content.

          Microflows [Ni98] are a subset of flows.  As defined in
          [Ni98], microflows require application-to-application
          measurement.  In contrast, flows use lower-layer
          classification criteria.  Since this document focuses on
          network-layer classification criteria, we concentrate here on
          the use of network-layer identifiers in describing a flow.
          Flow identifiers also may reside at the data-link, transport,
          or application layers of the OSI model.  However, identifiers
          other than those at the network layer are out of scope for
          this document.

          A flow may contain a single code point/IP precedence value or
          may contain multiple values destined for a single egress
          interface.  This is determined by the test methodology.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
          Microflow [Ni98]
          Streams

     3.2 Measurement Terms

     3.2.1 Forwarding Capacity

        Definition:
          The number of packets per second that a device can be
          observed to successfully transmit to the correct destination
          interface in response to a specified offered load while the
          device drops none of the offered packets.

        Discussion:
          Forwarding Capacity measures the packet rate at the egress
          interface(s) of the DUT/SUT.  In contrast, throughput as
          defined in RFC 1242 measures the packet rate at the ingress
          interface(s) of the DUT/SUT.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms


          Ingress-based measurements do not account for queuing of the
          DUT/SUT.  Throughput rates can be higher than the Forwarding
          Capacity because of queueing.  The difference is dependent
          upon test duration, packet rate, and queue size.  Forwarding
          Capacity, as an egress measurement, does take queuing into
          account.

          Understanding Forwarding Capacity is a necessary precursor to
          any measurement involving Traffic Control Mechanisms.  The
          accompanying methodology document MUST take into
          consideration Forwarding Capacity when determining the
          expected forwarding vectors.  When the sum of the expected
          forwarding vectors on an interface exceeds the Forwarding
          Capacity, the Forwarding Capacity will govern the forwarding
          rate.

          This measurement differs from forwarding rate at maximum
          offered load (FRMOL) [Ma98] in that Forwarding Capacity
          requires zero loss.

        Measurement units:
           N-octet packets per second

        See Also:
          Throughput [Br91]
          Forwarding Rate at Maximum Offered Load [Ma98]


     3.2.2 Conforming Packet

        Definition:
          Packets which lie within specific rate, delay, or jitter
          bounds.

        Discussion:
          A DUT/SUT may be configured to allow a given traffic class to
          consume a given amount of bandwidth, or to fall within
          predefined delay or jitter boundaries.  All packets that lie
          within specified bounds are then said to be conforming,
          whereas those outside the bounds are nonconforming.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
          Expected Vector
          Forwarding Vector
          Offered Vector
          Nonconforming

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.2.3 Nonconforming Packet

        Definition:
          Packets that do not lie within specific rate, delay, or
          jitter bounds.

        Discussion:
          A DUT/SUT may be configured to allow a given traffic class to
          consume a given amount of bandwidth, or to fall within
          predefined delay or jitter boundaries.  All packets that do
          not lie within these bounds are then said to be
          nonconforming.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
          Expected Vector
          Forwarding Vector
          Offered Vector
          Conforming

     3.2.4 Forwarding Delay

        Definition:
          The time interval starting when the last bit of the input IP
          packet is offered to the input port of the DUT/SUT and ending
          when the last bit of the output IP packet is received from
          the output port of the DUT/SUT.

        Discussion:
          The delay time interval MUST be externally observed.  The
          delay measurement MUST NOT include delays added by test bed
          components other than the DUT/SUT, such as propagation time
          introduced by cabling or non-zero delay added by the test
          instrument. Forwarding Delay differs from latency [Br91]
          and one-way delay [Al99] in several key regards:

          1. Latency [Br91] assumes knowledge of whether the DUT/SUT
          uses "store and forward" or "bit forwarding" technology.
          Forwarding Delay is the same metric, measured the same way,
          regardless of the architecture of the DUT/SUT.

          2. Forwarding Delay is a last-in, last-out (LILO)
          measurement, unlike the last-in, first-out method [Br91] or
          the first-in, last-out method [Al99].

          The LILO method most closely simulates the way a network-
          layer device actually processes an IP datagram.  IP datagrams
          are not passed up and down the stack unless they are
          complete, and processing begins only once the last bit of the
          IP datagram has been received.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                          [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

          Further, the LILO method has an additive property, where the
          sum of the parts MUST equal the whole.  This is a key
          difference from [Br91] and [Al99].  For example, the delay
          added by two DUTs MUST equal the sum of the delay of the
          DUTs.  This may or may not be the case with [Br91] and
          [Al99].

          3. Forwarding Delay measures the IP datagram only, unlike
          [Br91], which also includes link layer overhead.

          A metric focused exclusively on the Internet protocol
          relieves the tester from specifying the start/end for every
          link layer protocol that IP runs on.  This avoids the need to
          determine whether the start/stop delimiters are included.  It
          also allows the use of heterogeneous link layer protocols in
          a test.

          4. Forwarding Delay can be measured at any offered load,
          whereas the latency methodology [Br99] recommends measurement
          at, and only at, the throughput level.  Comparing the
          Forwarding Delay below the throughput to Forwarding Delay
          above the Forwarding Capacity will give insight to the
          traffic control mechanisms.

          For example, non-congested delay may be measured with an
          offered load that does not exceed the Forwarding Capacity,
          while congested delay may involve an offered load that
          exceeds Forwarding Capacity.

          Note: Forwarding Delay SHOULD NOT be used as an absolute
          indicator of DUT/SUT Forwarding Congestion.  While Forwarding
          Delay may rise when offered load nears or exceeds Forwarding
          Capacity, there is no universal point at which Forwarding
          Delay can be said to indicate the presence or absence of
          Forwarding Congestion.

        Measurement units:
           milliseconds

        See Also:
          Latency [Br91]
          Latency [Al99]
          One-way Delay [Br99]

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.2.5 Jitter

        Definition:
          The absolute value of the difference between the arrival
          delay of two consecutive received packets belonging to the
          same stream.

        Discussion:
          The Forwarding Delay fluctuation between two consecutive
          received packets in a stream is reported as the Jitter.
          Jitter can be expressed as |D(i) - D(i-1)| where D equals
          the Forwarding Delay and i is the order the packets were
          received.

          Under loss, jitter can be measured between non-consecutive
          test sequence numbers.  When IP Traffic Control Mechanisms
          are dropping packets, fluctuating Forwarding Delay may be
          observed.  Jitter MUST be able to benchmark the delay
          variation independent of packet loss.

          Jitter is related to the IPDV [De02] (IP Delay Variation) by
          taking the absolute value of the ipdv.  The two metrics will
          produce different mean values.  Mean Jitter will produce a
          positive value, where the mean ipdv is typically zero.  Also,
          IPDV is undefined when one packet from a pair is lost.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Forwarding Delay
          Jitter variation [Ja99]
          ipdv [De02]
          interarrival jitter [Sc96]

     3.2.6 Undifferentiated Response

        Definition:
          The vector(s) obtained when mechanisms used to support
          diff-serv or IP precedence are disabled.

        Discussion:
          Enabling diff-serv or IP precedence mechanisms may impose
          additional processing overhead for packets.  This overhead
          may degrade performance even when traffic belonging to only
          one class, the best-effort class, is offered to the device.
          Measurements with "undifferentiated response" SHOULD be made
          to establish a baseline.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms


          The vector(s) obtained with DSCP or IP precedence enabled can
          be compared to the undifferentiated response to determine the
          effect of differentiating traffic.

        Measurement units:
          n/a

     3.3 Sequence Tracking

     3.3.1 In-sequence Packet

        Definition:
          A received packet with the expected Test Sequence number.

        Discussion:
          In-sequence is done on a stream level.  As packets are
          received on a stream, each packets Test Sequence number is
          compared with the previous packet.  Only packets that match
          the expected Test Sequence number are considered in-sequence.

          Packets that do not match the expected Test Sequence number
          are counted as "not in-sequence" or out-of-sequence.  Every
          packet that is received is either in-sequence or out-of-
          sequence.  Subtracting the in-sequence from the received
          packets (for that stream), the tester can derive the
          out-of-sequence count.

          Two types of events will prevent the in-sequence from
          incrementing: packet loss and reordered packets.

        Measurement units:
          Packet count

        See Also:
          Stream
          Test Sequence number


     3.3.2 Out-of-order Packet

        Definition:
          A received packet with a sequence number less than
          the sequence number of a previously arriving packet.






Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Discussion:
          As a stream of packets enters a DUT/SUT, they include a
          Stream Test Sequence number indicating the order the packets
          were sent to the DUT/SUT.  On exiting the DUT/SUT, these
          packets may arrive in a different order.  Each packet that
          was re-ordered is counted as an Out-of-order Packet.

          Certain streaming protocol (such as TCP) require the packets
          to be in a certain order.  Packets outside this are dropped
          by the streaming protocols even though there were properly
          received by the IP layer.  The type of reordering tolerated
          by a streaming protocol varies from protocol to protocol, and
          also by implementation.

          Packet loss does not affect the Out-of-order Packet count.
          Only packets that were not received in the order that they
          were transmitted.

        Measurement units:
          packets

        See Also:
          Stream
          Test Sequence number
          Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM [Mo03]

     3.3.3 Duplicate Packet

        Definition:
          A received packet with a Test Sequence number matching a
          previously received packet.

        Discussion:
          A Duplicate Packet is a packet that the DUT/SUT has
          successfully transmitted out an egress interface more than
          once.  The egress interface has previously forwarded this
          packet.

          A Duplicate Packet SHOULD be a bit for bit copy of an already
          transmitted packet (including Test Sequence number).  If the
          Duplicate Packet traversed different paths through the
          DUT/SUT, some fields (such as TTL or checksum) may have
          changed.

          A multicast packet is not a Duplicate Packet by definition.
          For a given IP multicast group, a DUT/SUT SHOULD forward a
          packet once on a given egress interface provided the path to
          one or more multicast receivers is through that interface.
          Several egress interfaces will transmit the same packet, but
          only once per interface.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms



          To detect a Duplicate Packet, each offered packet to the
          DUT/SUT MUST contain a unique packet-by-packet identifier.

        Measurement units:
          Packet count

        See Also:
          Stream
          Test Sequence number


     3.3.4 Stream

        Definition:
          A group of packets tracked as a single entity by the traffic
          receiver.  A stream MUST share common content such as type
          (IP, UDP), IP SA/DA, packet size, or payload.

        Discussion:
          Streams are tracked by test sequence number or "unique
          signature field" [Ma00].  Streams define how individual
          packets statistic are grouped together to form an
          intelligible summary.

          Common stream groupings would be by egress interface,
          destination address, source address, DSCP, or IP precedence.
          A stream using test sequence numbers can track the ordering
          of packets as they traverse the DUT/SUT.

          Streams are not restricted to a pair of source and
          destination interfaces as long as all packets are tracked as
          a single entity.  A multicast stream can be forwarded to
          multiple destination interfaces.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
          Flow
          Microflow [Ni98]
          Test sequence number




Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.3.5 Test Sequence Number
        Definition:
          A field in the IP payload portion of the packet that is used
          to verify the order of the packets on the egress of the
          DUT/SUT.

        Discussion:
          The traffic generator sets the test sequence number value and
          the traffic receiver checks the value upon receipt of the
          packet.  The traffic generator changes the value on each
          packet transmitted based on an algorithm agreed to by the
          traffic receiver.

          The traffic receiver keeps track of the sequence numbers on a
          per stream basis.  In addition to number of received packets,
          the traffic receiver may also report the number of
          in-sequence packets, number of out-of-sequence packets,
          number of duplicate packets, and number of reordered packets.
          The RECOMMENDED algorithm to use to change the sequence
          number on sequential packets is an incrementing value.

        Measurement units:
           n/a

        See Also:
          Stream

     3.4 Vectors
          A vector is a group of packets all matching a specific
          classification criteria, such as DSCP.  Vectors are
          identified by the classification criteria and benchmarking
          metrics such as a Forwarding Capacity, Forwarding Delay,
          or Jitter.

     3.4.1 Intended Vector
        Definition:
          A description of the configuration on an external source
          for the attempted rate of a stream transmitted to a DUT/SUT
          matching specific classification rules.

        Discussion:
          The Intended Vector of a stream influences the benchmark
          measurements.  The Intended Vector is described by the
          classification criteria and attempted rate.

        Measurement Units:
          N-bytes packets per second

        See Also:
          Stream
          Offered Vector
          Forwarding Vector

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 15]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.4.2 Offered Vector

        Definition:
          A description for the attempted rate of a stream offered to
          a DUT/SUT matching specific classification rules.

        Discussion:
          The Offered Vector of a stream influences the benchmark
          measurements.  The Offered Vector is described by the
          classification criteria and offered rate.

        Measurement Units:
          N-bytes packets per second

        See Also:
          Stream
          Intended Vector
          Forwarding Vector

     3.4.3 Expected Vectors
     3.4.3.1 Expected Forwarding Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected output rate of packets
          matching a specific classification, such as DSCP.

       Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Forwarding Vector.

        Measurement units:
          N-octet packets per second

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 16]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.4.3.2 Expected Loss Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the percentage of packets, having a
          specific classification that SHOULD NOT be forwarded.

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Loss Vector.

        Measurement Units:
          Percentage of intended packets that is expected to be
          dropped.

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          One-way Packet Loss Metric [Ka99]

     3.4.3.3 Expected Sequence Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected in-sequence packets matching
          a specific classification, such as DSCP.

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Sequence Vector.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 17]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Measurement Units:
          N-octet packets per second

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          In-Sequence Packet
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector


     3.4.3.4 Expected Delay Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected instantaneous Forwarding
          Delay for packets matching a specific classification, such
          as DSCP.

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Delay Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector

     3.4.3.5 Expected Average Delay Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected average Forwarding Delay
          for packets matching a specific classification, such as
          DSCP.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 18]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Average Delay Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector

     3.4.3.6 Expected Maximum Delay Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected maximum Forwarding Delay
          for packets matching a specific classification, such as
          DSCP.

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Maximum Delay Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 19]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector

     3.4.3.7 Expected Minimum Delay Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected minimum Forwarding Delay
          for packets matching a specific classification, such as
          DSCP.

        Discussion:
          The value of the Expected Minimum Delay Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Minimum Delay Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector

     3.4.3.8 Expected Instantaneous Jitter Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected instantaneous jitter between two
          consecutive packets arrival times matching a specific
          classification, such as DSCP.

        Discussion:
          Instantaneous Jitter is the absolute value of the difference
          between the Forwarding Delay measurement of two packets
          belonging to the same stream.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 20]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

          The Forwarding Delay fluctuation between two consecutive
          packets in a stream is reported as the "Instantaneous
          Jitter".  Instantaneous Jitter can be expressed as
          |D(i) - D(i-1)| where D equals the Forwarding Delay and i is
          the test sequence number.  Packets lost are not counted in
          the measurement.

          Forwarding Vector may contain several Jitter Vectors.  For n
          packets received in a Forwarding Vector, there is a total of
          (n-1) Instantaneous Jitter Vectors.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Jitter
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector

     3.4.3.9 Expected Average Jitter Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected average jitter for packets
          arriving in a stream matching a specific classification, such
          as DSCP.

        Discussion:
          Average Jitter Vector is the average of all the Instantaneous
          Jitter Vectors measured during the test duration for the same
          stream.

          The value of the Expected Average Jitter Vector is dependent
          on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Average Jitter Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 21]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Jitter
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Instantaneous Jitter Vector

     3.4.3.10 Expected Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector

        Definition:
          A description of the expected maximum variation in the
          Forwarding Delay of packet arrival times for packets
          arriving in a stream matching a specific classification,
          such as DSCP.

        Discussion:
          Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector is the maximum Forwarding Delay
          minus the minimum Forwarding Delay of the packets (in a
          vector) forwarded by the DUT/SUT.

          Peak-to-peak Jitter is not derived from the Instantaneous
          Jitter Vector. Peak-to-peak Jitter is based upon all the
          packets during the test duration, not just two consecutive
          packets.

          The value of the Expected Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector is
          dependent on the set of offered vectors and Classification
          configuration on the DUT/SUT.  The DUT is configured in a
          certain way in order that classification occurs when a
          traffic mix consisting of multiple streams is applied.

          This term captures the expected forwarding behavior from the
          DUT receiving multiple Offered Vectors.  The actual algorithm
          or mechanism the DUT uses to achieve service differentiation
          is implementation specific and not important when describing
          the Expected Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Jitter
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Instantaneous Jitter Vector
          Expected Average Jitter Vector

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 22]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.4.4 Output Vectors
     3.4.4.1 Forwarding Vector
        Definition:
          The number of packets per second for a stream matching a
          specific classification, such as DSCP, that a DUT/SUT
          is measured to successfully forward to the correct
          destination interface in response to an offered vector.

        Discussion:
          Forwarding Vector is expressed as a combination of values:
          the classification rules AND the measured packets per
          second for the stream matching the classification rules.
          Forwarding Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The DUT/SUT
          MAY remark the specific DSCP (or IP precedence) value for
          a multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

        Measurement units:
          N-octet packets per second

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Capacity
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Vector

     3.4.4.2 Loss Vector
        Definition:
          The percentage of packets per second for a stream
          matching a specific classification, such as DSCP, that
          a DUT/SUT is measured to not transmit to the correct
          destination interface in response to an offered vector.

        Discussion:
          Loss Vector is expressed as a combination of values:
          the classification rules AND the measured percentage
          value of packet loss.  Loss Vector is a per-hop
          measurement.  The DUT/SUT MAY remark the specific DSCP
          or IP precedence value for a multi-hop measurement.
          The stream remains the same.

        Measurement Units:
          Percentage of packets

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Vector
          One-way Packet Loss Metric [Ka99]

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 23]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.4.4.3 Sequence Vector
        Definition:
          The number of packets per second for all packets in a
          stream matching a specific classification, such as DSCP,
          that a DUT/SUT is measured to transmit in sequence to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Sequence Vector is expressed as a combination of values:
          the classification rules AND the number of packets per
          second that are in-sequence.

          Sequence Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The DUT/SUT
          MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value for
          a multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

        Measurement Units:
          N-octet packets per second

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          In-sequence Packet
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Vector

     3.4.4.4 Instantaneous Delay Vector
        Definition:
          The instantaneous Forwarding Delay for a packet in a
          stream matching a specific classification, such as DSCP,
          that a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully transmit to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Instantaneous Delay Vector is expressed as a combination
          of values:  the classification rules AND Forwarding Delay.
          For every packet received in a Forwarding Vector, there
          is a corresponding Instantaneous Delay Vector.

          Instantaneous Delay Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The
          DUT/SUT MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value
          for a multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

          Instantaneous Delay Vector can be obtained at any offered
          load.  It is RECOMMENDED to obtain this vector at or below
          the Forwarding Capacity in the absence of Forwarding
          Congestion.  For congested Forwarding Delay, run the
          offered load above the Forwarding Capacity.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 24]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Measurement Units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Capacity
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector

     3.4.4.5 Average Delay Vector

        Definition:
          The average Forwarding Delay for packets in a stream
          matching a specific classification, such as DSCP, that
          a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully transmit to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Average Delay Vector is expressed as combination of values:
          the classification rules AND average Forwarding Delay.

          The average Forwarding Delay is computed by averaging all
          the Instantaneous Delay Vectors for a given stream.

          Average Delay Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The DUT/SUT
          MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value for a
          multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

          Average Delay Vector can be obtained at any offered load.
          Recommend at or below the Forwarding Capacity in the
          absence of congestion.  For congested Forwarding Delay, run
          the offered load above the Forwarding Capacity.

        Measurement Units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Capacity
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector
          Instantaneous Delay Vector

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 25]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

     3.4.4.6 Maximum Delay Vector
        Definition:
          The maximum Forwarding Delay for packets in a stream
          matching a specific classification, such as DSCP, that
          a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully transmit to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Maximum Delay Vector is expressed as combination of values:
          the classification rules AND maximum Forwarding Delay.

          The maximum Forwarding Delay is computed by selecting the
          highest value from the Instantaneous Delay Vectors for a
          given stream.

          Maximum Delay Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The DUT/SUT
          MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value for a
          multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

          Maximum Delay Vector can be obtained at any offered load.
          Recommend at or below the Forwarding Capacity in the
          absence of congestion.  For congested Forwarding Delay, run
          the offered load above the Forwarding Capacity.

        Measurement Units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Capacity
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector
          Instantaneous Delay Vector

     3.4.4.7 Minimum Delay Vector
        Definition:
          The minimum Forwarding Delay for packets in a stream
          matching a specific classification, such as DSCP, that
          a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully transmit to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Minimum Delay Vector is expressed as a combination of
          values:  the classification rules AND maximum Forwarding
          Delay.  The minimum Forwarding Delay is computed by
          selecting the highest value from the Instantaneous Delay
          Vectors for a given stream.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 26]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

          Minimum Delay Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The DUT/SUT
          MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value for a
          multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

          Minimum Delay Vector can be obtained at any offered load.
          Recommend at or below the Forwarding Capacity in the
          absence of congestion.  For congested Forwarding Delay, run
          the offered load above the Forwarding Capacity.

        Measurement Units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Capacity
          Forwarding Delay
          Intended Vector
          Offered Vector
          Expected Delay Vector

     3.4.4.8 Instantaneous Jitter Vector
        Definition:
          The jitter for two consecutive packets in a
          stream matching a specific classification, such as DSCP,
          that a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully transmit to the
          correct destination interface in response to an offered
          vector.

        Discussion:
          Instantaneous Jitter is the absolute value of the difference
          between the Forwarding Delay measurement of two packets
          belonging to the same stream.

          Jitter vector is expressed as pair of numbers.  Both the
          specific DSCP (or IP precedence) value AND jitter value
          combine to make a vector.

          The Forwarding Delay fluctuation between two consecutive
          packets in a stream is reported as the "Instantaneous Jitter".
          Instantaneous Jitter Vector can be expressed as
          |D(i) - D(i-1)| where D equals the Forwarding Delay and i is
          the test sequence number.  Packets lost are not counted in
          the measurement.

          Instantaneous Jitter Vector is a per-hop measurement.  The
          DUT/SUT MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value
          for a multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

          There may be several Instantaneous Jitter Vectors for a
          single stream.  For n packets measured, there may be (n-1)
          Instantaneous Jitter Vectors.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 27]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Forwarding Delay
          Jitter
          Forwarding Vector
          Expected Vectors

     3.4.4.9 Average Jitter Vector

        Definition:
          The average jitter for packets in a stream matching a
          specific classification, such as DSCP, that a DUT/SUT is
          measured to successfully transmit to the correct
          destination interface in response to an offered vector.

        Discussion:
          Average jitter is calculated by the average of all the
          Instantaneous Jitter Vectors of the same stream measured
          during the test duration. Average Jitter Vector is
          expressed as a combination of values:  the
          classification rules AND average Jitter.

          Average Jitter vector is a per-hop measurement.  The
          DUT/SUT MAY remark the specific DSCP or IP precedence value
          for a multi-hop measurement.  The stream remains the same.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Classification
          Stream
          Jitter
          Forwarding Vector
          Expected Vector
          Instantaneous Jitter Vector

     3.4.4.10 Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector

        Definition:
          The maximum possible variation in the Forwarding Delay for
          packets in a stream matching a specific classification,
          such as DSCP, that a DUT/SUT is measured to successfully
          transmit to the correct destination interface in response
          to an offered vector.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 28]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

        Discussion:
          Peak-to-peak Jitter Vector is calculated by subtracting
          the maximum Forwarding Delay from the minimum Forwarding
          Delay of the packets forwarded by the DUT/SUT. Jitter
          vector is expressed as a combination of values:  the
          classification rules AND peak-to-peak Jitter.

          Peak-to-peak Jitter is not derived from the Instantaneous
          Jitter Vector.  Peak-to-peak Jitter is based upon all the
          packets during the test duration, not just two consecutive
          packets.

        Measurement units:
          milliseconds

        See Also:
          Jitter
          Forwarding Vector
          Stream
          Expected Vectors
          Instantaneous Jitter Vector
          Average Jitter Vector

4. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA considerations.

5. Security Considerations

          Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
          the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
          is not performed on devices or systems connected to
          production networks.

          Packets with unintended and/or unauthorized DSCP or IP
          precedence values may present security issues.  Determining
          the security consequences of such packets is out of scope for
          this document.

6. Acknowledgments

          The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the
          IETF's benchmarking working group members in reviewing this
          document.  The authors would like to express our thanks to
          David Newman for his consistent and valuable assistance
          throughout the development of this document.  The authors
          would also like to thank Al Morton (acmorton@att.com) and
          Kevin Dubray (kdubray@juniper.net) for their ideas and
          support.

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 29]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

7. References
7.1 Normative References
       [Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
              Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

       [Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997

       [Br98] Braden, B., Clark, D., Crowcroft, J., Davie, B.,
              Deering, S., Estrin, D., Floyd, S., Jacobson, V.,
              Minshall, G., Partridge, C., Peterson, L., Ramakrishnan,
              K., Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J. and L. Zhang,
              "Recommendations on Queue Management and Congestion
              Avoidance in the Internet", RFC 2309, April 1998.

       [Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
              Switching Devices", RFC 2285, July 1998.

       [Ni98] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., Black, D., "Definition
              of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the
              IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.

       [St91] Steinberg, L., "Techniques for Managing Asynchronously
              Generated Alerts", RC 1224, May 1991.

7.2 Informative References
       [Al99] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way Delay
              Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999

       [Bl98] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              Weiss, W., "An Architecture for Differentiated Services",
              RFC 2475, December 1998.

       [Br99] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J. "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999

       [De02] Demichelis, C., Chimento, P., "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IPPM", RFC 3393, November 2002

       [Ec98] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/98mar/
              98mar-edited-135.htm

       [Fl93] Floyd, S., and Jacobson, V., "Random Early Detection
              gateways for Congestion Avoidance", IEEE/ACM
              Transactions on Networking, V.1 N.4, August 1993, p.
              397-413.  URL "ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/early.pdf".

       [Ja99] Jacobson, V., Nichols, K., Poduri, K., "An Expedited
              Forwarding PHB", RFC 2598, June 1999

       [Ka99] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., "A One-way
              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 30]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

       [Ma91] Mankin, A., Ramakrishnan, K., "Gateway Congestion Control
              Survey", RFC 1254, August 1991

       [Ma00] Mandeville, R., Perser, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
              LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, August 2000

       [Mo03] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
              S., Perser, J., "Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM",
              Work in Progress

       [Na84] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks",
              RFC 896, January 1984.

       [Ra99] Ramakrishnan, K. and Floyd, S., "A Proposal to add
              Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 2481,
              January 1999.

       [Sc96] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., Jacobson, V.,
              "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
              RFC 1889, January 1996

8. Authors' Addresses

          Jerry Perser
          Veriwave
          USA
          EMail: jperser@veriwave.com

          Scott Poretsky
          Reef Point Systems
          8 New England Executive Park
          Burlington, MA 01803
          USA
          Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
          EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com

          Shobha Erramilli
          Telcordia Technologies
          331 Newman Springs Road
          Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
          USA
          Email: shobha@research.telcordia.com

          Sumit Khurana
          Telcordia Technologies
          445 South Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          USA
          Phone: + 1 973 829 3170
          EMail: sumit@research.telcordia.com

Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 31]

INTERNET-DRAFT       Terminology for Benchmarking         June 2006
                 Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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.






Perser, Poretsky, Khurana, Erramilli                         [Page 32]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/