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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 3918

  Network Working Group                                     Debra Stopp
  INTERNET-DRAFT                                                   Ixia
  Expires in:  February 2004                             Brooks Hickman
                                                 Spirent Communications
                                                           January 2004
  
  
                Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
                     <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-14.txt>
  
  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.
  
  
  Copyright Notice
  
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.
  
  
  Abstract
  
     The purpose of this document is to describe methodology specific to
     the benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon
     the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 2432 and other IETF
     Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This
     document seeks to extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
  
     The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
     Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
     Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related
     terms. The Methodology documents define the procedures required to
     collect the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology
     documents.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 1]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
                            Table of Contents
  
  1. INTRODUCTION...................................................3
  
  2. KEY WORDS TO REFLECT REQUIREMENTS..............................3
  
  3. TEST SET UP....................................................3
  3.1. Test Considerations..........................................5
  3.1.1.  IGMP Support..............................................6
  3.1.2.  Group Addresses...........................................6
  3.1.3.  Frame Sizes...............................................6
  3.1.4.  TTL.......................................................6
  3.1.5.  Trial Duration............................................6
  4. FORWARDING AND THROUGHPUT......................................7
  4.1. Mixed Class Throughput.......................................7
  4.2. Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix...............................8
  4.3. Aggregated Multicast Throughput..............................9
  4.4. Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput..........10
  4.4.1.  Encapsulation Throughput.................................10
  4.4.2.  Decapsulation Throughput.................................12
  4.4.3.  Re-encapsulation Throughput..............................14
  5. FORWARDING LATENCY............................................16
  5.1. Multicast Latency...........................................17
  5.2. Min/Max Multicast Latency...................................19
  6. OVERHEAD......................................................20
  6.1. Group Join Delay............................................20
  6.2. Group Leave Delay...........................................23
  7. CAPACITY......................................................25
  7.1. Multicast Group Capacity....................................25
  8. INTERACTION...................................................26
  8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency.......................26
  8.2. Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay........................27
  9. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................28
  
  10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................29
  
  11. CONTRIBUTIONS................................................29
  
  12. REFERENCES...................................................30
  
  13. AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES...........................................31
  
  14. FULL COPYRIGHT STATEMENT.....................................31
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 2]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  1. Introduction
  
     This document defines tests for measuring and reporting the
     throughput, forwarding, latency and IGMP group membership
     characteristics of devices that support IP multicast protocols.
     The results of these tests will provide the user with meaningful
     data on multicast performance.
  
     A previous document, " Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking"
     (RFC 2432), defined many of the terms that are used in this
     document. The terminology document should be consulted before
     attempting to make use of this document.
  
     This methodology will focus on one source to many destinations,
     although many of the tests described may be extended to use
     multiple source to multiple destination topologies.
  
  
  2. Key Words to Reflect Requirements
  
     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",  "SHALL
     NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
     in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
     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.
  
  
  3. Test set up
  
     The set of methodologies presented in this document are for single
     ingress, multiple egress multicast scenarios as exemplified by
     Figures 1 and 2.  Methodologies for multiple ingress and multiple
     egress multicast scenarios are beyond the scope of this document.
  
     Figure 1 shows a typical setup for an IP multicast test, with one
     source to multiple destinations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 3]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
                            +------------+         +--------------+
                            |            |         |  destination |
          +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
          | source |        |            |         |   port(E1)   |
          |  test  |------>(|)Ingress    |         +--------------+
          |  port  |        |            |         +--------------+
          +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|  destination |
                            |            |         |    test      |
                            |            |         |   port(E2)   |
                            |    DUT     |         +--------------+
                            |            |               . . .
                            |            |         +--------------+
                            |            |         |  destination |
                            |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
                            |            |         |   port(En)   |
                            +------------+         +--------------+
  
                                 Figure 1
                                ---------
  
     If the multicast metrics are to be taken across multiple devices
     forming a System Under Test (SUT), then test frames are offered to
     a single ingress interface on a device of the SUT, subsequently
     forwarded across the SUT topology, and finally forwarded to the
     test apparatus' frame-receiving components by the test egress
     interface(s) of devices in the SUT. Figure 2 offers an example SUT
     test topology.  If a SUT is tested, the test topology and all
     relevant configuration details MUST be disclosed with the
     corresponding test results.
  
  
                 *-----------------------------------------*
                 |                                         |
     +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
     |        |  |   +------------+    |DUT B Egress E0(-)-|->|        |
     |        |  |   |DUT A       |--->|                |  |  |        |
     | source |  |   |            |    |      Egress E1(-)-|->|  dest. |
     |  test  |--|->(-)Ingress, I |    +----------------+  |  |  test  |
     |  port  |  |   |            |    +----------------+  |  |  port  |
     |        |  |   |            |--->|DUT C Egress E2(-)-|->|        |
     |        |  |   +------------+    |                |  |  |        |
     |        |  |                     |      Egress En(-)-|->|        |
     +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
                 |                                         |
                 *------------------SUT--------------------*
  
                                  Figure 2
                                  ---------
  
     Generally, the destination test ports first join the desired number
     of multicast groups by sending IGMP Group Report messages to the
     DUT/SUT. To verify that all destination test ports successfully
     joined the appropriate groups, the source test port MUST transmit
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 4]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     IP multicast frames destined for these groups. After test
     completion, the destination test ports MAY send IGMP Leave Group
     messages to clear the IGMP table of the DUT/SUT.
  
     In addition, test equipment MUST validate the correct and proper
     forwarding actions of the devices they test in order to ensure the
     receipt of the frames that are involved in the test.
  
  
  3.1. Test Considerations
  
     The methodology assumes a uniform medium topology. Issues regarding
     mixed transmission media, such as speed mismatch, headers
     differences, etc., are not specifically addressed. Flow control,
     QoS and other non-essential traffic or traffic-affecting mechanisms
     affecting the variable under test MUST be disabled.  Modifications
     to the collection procedures might need to be made to accommodate
     the transmission media actually tested.  These accommodations MUST
     be presented with the test results.
  
     An actual flow of test traffic MAY be required to prime related
     mechanisms, (e.g., process RPF events, build device caches, etc.)
     to optimally forward subsequent traffic.  Therefore, prior to
     running any tests that require forwarding of multicast or unicast
     packets, the test apparatus MUST generate test traffic utilizing
     the same addressing characteristics to the DUT/SUT that will
     subsequently be used to measure the DUT/SUT response.  The test
     monitor should ensure the correct forwarding of traffic by the
     DUT/SUT. The priming action need only be repeated to keep the
     associated information current.
  
     It is the intent of this memo to provide the methodology for basic
     characterizations regarding the forwarding of multicast packets by
     a device or simple system of devices.  These characterizations may
     be useful in illustrating the impact of device architectural
     features (e.g., message passing versus shared memory; handling
     multicast traffic as an exception by the general purpose processor
     versus the by a primary data path, etc.) in the forwarding of
     multicast traffic.
  
     It has been noted that the formation of the multicast distribution
     tree may be a significant component of multicast performance.
     While this component may be present in some of the measurements or
     scenarios presented in this memo, this memo does not seek to
     explicitly benchmark the formation of the multicast distribution
     tree.  The benchmarking of the multicast distribution tree
     formation is left as future, more targeted work specific to a given
     tree formation vehicle.
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 5]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  3.1.1. IGMP Support
  
     All of the ingress and egress interfaces MUST support a version of
     IGMP.  The IGMP version on the ingress interface MUST be the same
     version of IGMP that is being tested on the egress interfaces.
  
     Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD be able to respond
     to IGMP queries during the test.
  
     Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD also send LEAVE
     (running IGMP version 2 or later) after each test.
  
  
  3.1.2. Group Addresses
  
     There is no restriction to the use of multicast addresses to
     compose the test traffic other than those assignments imposed by
     IANA.  The IANA assignments for multicast addresses[IANA1] MUST be
     regarded for operational consistency.  Address selection does not
     need to be restricted to Administratively Scoped IP Multicast
     addresses[Me89].
  
  
  3.1.3. Frame Sizes
  
     Each test SHOULD be run with different multicast frame sizes. For
     Ethernet, the recommended sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280,
     and 1518 byte frames.
  
     Other link layer technologies MAY be used. The minimum and maximum
     frame lengths of the link layer technology in use SHOULD be tested.
  
     When testing with different frame sizes, the DUT/SUT configuration
     MUST remain the same.
  
  
  3.1.4. TTL
  
     The data plane test traffic should have a TTL value large enough to
     traverse the DUT/SUT.
  
     The TTL in IGMP control plane messages MUST be in compliance with
     the version of IGMP in use.
  
  
  3.1.5. Trial Duration
  
     The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least
     30 seconds.  This parameter MUST be included as part of the results
     reporting for each methodology.
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 6]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  4. Forwarding and Throughput
  
  This section contains the description of the tests that are related
  to the characterization of the frame forwarding of a DUT/SUT in a
  multicast environment.  Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
  presented in RFC 1242.  Forwarding Rate is cited in RFC 2285 [Ma98].
  
  4.1. Mixed Class Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the throughput of a DUT/SUT when both unicast class
     frames and multicast class frames are offered simultaneously to a
     fixed number of interfaces as defined in RFC 2432.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Multicast and unicast traffic are mixed together in the same
     aggregated traffic stream in order to simulate a heterogeneous
     networking environment.
  
     The following events MUST occur before offering test traffic:
  
          o All destination test ports configured to receive multicast
            traffic MUST join all configured multicast groups;
          o The DUT/SUT MUST learn the appropriate unicast and
            multicast addresses; and
          o Group membership and unicast address learning MUST be
            verified through some externally observable method.
  
     The intended load [Ma98] SHOULD be configured as alternating
     multicast class frames and unicast class frames to a single ingress
     interface.  The unicast class frames MUST be configured to transmit
     in an unweighted round-robin fashion to all of the destination
     ports.
  
     For example, with six multicast groups and 3 destination ports with
     one unicast addresses per port, the source test port will offer
     frames in the following order:
  
          m1  u1  m2  u2  m3  u3  m4  u1  m5  u2  m6  u3  m1 ...
  
          Where:
  
          m<Number> = Multicast Frame<Group>
          u<Number> = Unicast Frame<Target Port>
  
     Mixed class throughput measurement is defined in RFC2432 [Du98]. A
     search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the Mixed Class
     Throughput.  The ratio of unicast to multicast frames MUST remain
     the same when varying the intended load.
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 7]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Traffic distribution for unicast and multicast traffic
            classes
          o The ratio of multicast to unicast class traffic
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Mixed Class Throughput as defined in RFC2432 [Du98],
            including: Throughput per unicast and multicast traffic
            classes.
  
     The Mixed Class Throughput results for each test SHOULD be reported
     in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame
     sizes per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row SHOULD
     specify the intended load, number of multicast frames offered,
     number of unicast frames offered and measured throughput per class.
  
  
  4.2.  Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine Forwarding Rate as a function of tested multicast
     groups for a fixed number of tested DUT/SUT ports.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     This is an iterative procedure. The destination test port(s) MUST
     join an initial number of multicast groups on the first iteration.
     All destination test ports configured to receive multicast traffic
     MUST join all configured multicast groups.  The recommended number
     of groups to join on the first iteration is 10 groups.  Multicast
     traffic is subsequently transmitted to all groups joined on this
     iteration and the forwarding rate is measured.
  
     The number of multicast groups joined by each destination test port
     is then incremented, or scaled, by an additional number of
     multicast groups.  The recommended granularity of additional groups
     to join per iteration is 10, although the tester MAY choose a finer
     granularity.  Multicast traffic is subsequently transmitted to all
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 8]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     groups joined during this iteration and the forwarding rate is
     measured.
  
     The total number of multicast groups joined MUST not exceed the
     multicast group capacity of the DUT/SUT. The Group Capacity
     (Section 7.1) results MUST be known prior to running this test.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The total number of multicast groups joined for that
            iteration
          o Forwarding rate determined for that iteration
  
     The Scaled Group Forwarding results for each test SHOULD be
     reported in the form of a table with a row representing each
     iteration of the test.  Each row or iteration SHOULD specify the
     total number of groups joined for that iteration, offered load,
     total number of frames transmitted, total number of frames received
     and the aggregate forwarding rate determined for that iteration.
  
  
  4.3. Aggregated Multicast Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames
     to be forwarded through N destination interfaces of the same
     multicast groups are dropped.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Offer multicast traffic at an initial maximum offered load to a
     fixed set of interfaces with a fixed number of groups at a fixed
     frame length for a fixed duration of time.  All destination test
     ports MUST join all specified multicast groups.
  
     If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and
     the sender will transmit again.  An iterative search algorithm MUST
     be utilized to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero
     frame loss.
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 9]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the
     multicast traffic, while keeping the set of interfaces, number of
     multicast groups, frame length and test duration fixed, until the
     maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is
     determined.
  
     Parameters to be measured MUST include the maximum offered load at
     which no frame loss occurred.  Other offered loads MAY be measured
     for diagnostic purposes.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Aggregated Multicast Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
  
     The Aggregated Multicast Throughput results SHOULD be reported in
     the format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
     per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify offered load, total number of offered frames and the
     measured Aggregated Multicast Throughput.
  
  
  4.4. Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput
  
     This sub-section provides the description of tests related to the
     determination of throughput measurements when a DUT/SUT or a set of
     DUTs are acting as tunnel endpoints.
  
     For this specific testing scenario, encapsulation or tunneling
     refers to a packet that contains an unsupported protocol feature in
     a format that is supported by the DUT/SUT.
  
  
  4.4.1. Encapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one
     ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are encapsulated and correctly
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 10]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     forwarded on one or more egress interfaces of the DUT/SUT without
     loss.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
             Source              DUT/SUT                Destination
            Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
           +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |------->|Ingress    |             |         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
  
                                 Figure 3
                                 ---------
  
     Figure 3 shows the setup for testing the encapsulation throughput
     of the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between each
     egress interface of the DUT/SUT and a destination test port.  Non-
     Encapsulated multicast traffic will then be offered by the source
     test port, encapsulated by the DUT/SUT and forwarded to the
     destination test port(s).
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across each
     egress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  In
     addition, it is RECOMMENDED to test with the same number of tunnels
     on each egress interface.  All destination test ports MUST join all
     multicast group addresses offered by the source test port.  Each
     egress interface MUST be configured with the same MTU.
  
     Note: when offering large frames sizes, the encapsulation process
     may require the DUT/SUT to fragment the IP datagrams prior to being
     forwarded on the egress interface.  It is RECOMMENDED to limit the
     offered frame size such that no fragmentation is required by the
     DUT/SUT.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the encapsulation
     throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 11]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
          o Originating un-encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels per egress interface
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
          o Encapsulation algorithm or format used to tunnel the
            packets
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Measured Encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Encapsulated frame size
  
     The Encapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the form
     of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows for each
     originating un-encapsulated frame size.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify the offered load, encapsulation method, encapsulated
     frame size, total number of offered frames, and the encapsulation
     throughput.
  
  
  4.4.2. Decapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one
     ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are decapsulated and correctly
     forwarded by the DUT/SUT on one or more egress interfaces without
     loss.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 12]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     Procedure:
  
             Source                  DUT/SUT            Destination
            Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
           +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |--(Tunnel)-->|Ingress    |        |         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
  
                                     Figure 4
                                     ---------
  
     Figure 4 shows the setup for testing the decapsulation throughput
     of the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between the source
     test port and the DUT/SUT.  Encapsulated multicast traffic will
     then be offered by the source test port, decapsulated by the
     DUT/SUT and forwarded to the destination test port(s).
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across the
     ingress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  All
     destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
     offered by the source test port.  Each egress interface MUST
     be configured with the same MTU.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the decapsulation
     throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
     When making performance comparisons between the encapsulation and
     decapsulation process of the DUT/SUT, the offered frame sizes
     SHOULD reflect the encapsulated frame sizes reported in the
     encapsulation test (See section 4.4.1) in place of those noted in
     section 3.1.3.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 13]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Originating encapsulation algorithm or format used to
            tunnel the packets
          o Originating encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Measured Decapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Decapsulated frame size
  
  
     The Decapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
     format of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows
     for each originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the offered load, decapsulated frame size,
     total number of offered frames and the decapsulation throughput.
  
  
  4.4.3. Re-encapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames of one encapsulated
     format offered to one ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are converted
     to another encapsulated format and correctly forwarded by the
     DUT/SUT on one or more egress interfaces without loss.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 14]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Procedure:
  
              Source                DUT/SUT             Destination
             Test Port                                  Test Port(s)
            +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |-(Tunnel)->|Ingress  |           |         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
  
                                   Figure 5
                                   ---------
  
     Figure 5 shows the setup for testing the Re-encapsulation
     throughput of the DUT/SUT.  The source test port will offer
     encapsulated traffic of one type to the DUT/SUT, which has been
     configured to re-encapsulate the offered frames using a different
     encapsulation format. The DUT/SUT will then forward the re-
     encapsulated frames to the destination test port(s).
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across the
     ingress and each egress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  In
     addition, the DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the number of
     tunnels on the ingress and each egress interface are the same. All
     destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
     offered by the source test port. Each egress interface MUST be
     configured with the same MTU.
  
     Note that when offering large frames sizes, the encapsulation
     process may require the DUT/SUT to fragment the IP datagrams prior
     to being forwarded on the egress interface. It is RECOMMENDED to
     limit the offered frame sizes, such that no fragmentation is
     required by the DUT/SUT.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the re-
     encapsulation throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 15]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
          o Originating encapsulation algorithm or format used to
            tunnel the packets
          o Re-encapsulation algorithm or format used to tunnel the
            packets
          o Originating encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels per interface
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Measured Re-encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Re-encapsulated frame size
  
     The Re-encapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
     format of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows
     for each originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the offered load, decapsulated frame size,
     total number of offered frames and the Re-encapsulated Throughput.
  
  
  5. Forwarding Latency
  
     This section presents methodologies relating to the
     characterization of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT in a
     multicast environment. It extends the concept of latency
     characterization presented in RFC 2544.
  
     The offered load accompanying the latency-measured packet can
     affect the DUT/SUT packet buffering, which may subsequently impact
     measured packet latency.  This SHOULD be a consideration when
     selecting the intended load for the described methodologies below.
  
     RFC 1242 and RFC 2544 draw a distinction between device types:
     "store and forward" and "bit-forwarding." Each type impacts how
     latency is collected and subsequently presented. See the related
     RFCs for more information.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 16]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  5.1. Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single,
     multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple, egress
     multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
     metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432 [Du98].
  
     The procedures below draw from the collection methodology for
     latency in RFC 2544 [Br96].  The methodology addresses two
     topological scenarios: one for a single device (DUT)
     characterization; a second scenario is presented or multiple device
     (SUT) characterization.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     If the test trial is to characterize latency across a single Device
     Under Test (DUT), an example test topology might take the form of
     Figure 1 in section 3.  That is, a single DUT with one ingress
     interface receiving the multicast test traffic from frame-
     transmitting component of the test apparatus and n egress
     interfaces on the same DUT forwarding the multicast test traffic
     back to the frame-receiving component of the test apparatus.  Note
     that n reflects the number of TESTED egress interfaces on the DUT
     actually expected to forward the test traffic (as opposed to
     configured but untested, non-forwarding interfaces, for example).
  
     If the multicast latencies are to be taken across multiple devices
     forming a System Under Test (SUT), an example test topology might
     take the form of Figure 2 in section 3.
  
     The trial duration SHOULD be 120 seconds to be consistent with RFC
     2544 [Br96].  The nature of the latency measurement, "store and
     forward" or "bit forwarding," MUST be associated with the related
     test trial(s) and disclosed in the results report.
  
     A test traffic stream is presented to the DUT. It is RECOMMENDED to
     offer traffic at the measured aggregated multicast throughput rate
     (Section 4.3).  At the mid-point of the trial's duration, the test
     apparatus MUST inject a uniquely identifiable ("tagged") frame into
     the test traffic frames being presented.  This tagged frame will be
     the basis for the latency measurements. By "uniquely identifiable,"
     it is meant that the test apparatus MUST be able to discern the
     "tagged" frame from the other frames comprising the test traffic
     set.  A frame generation timestamp, Timestamp A, reflecting the
     completion of the transmission of the tagged frame by the test
     apparatus, MUST be determined.
  
     The test apparatus will monitor frames from the DUT's tested egress
     interface(s) for the expected tagged frame(s) and MUST record the
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 17]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     time of the successful detection of a tagged frame from a tested
     egress interface with a timestamp, Timestamp B.  A set of Timestamp
     B values MUST be collected for all tested egress interfaces of the
     DUT/SUT.  See RFC 1242 [Br91] for additional discussion regarding
     store and forward devices and bit forwarding devices.
  
     A trial MUST be considered INVALID should any of the following
     conditions occur in the collection of the trial data:
  
          o Unexpected differences between Intended Load and Offered
            Load or unexpected differences between Offered Load and the
            resulting Forwarding Rate(s) on the DUT/SUT egress ports.
          o Forwarded test frames improperly formed or frame header
            fields improperly manipulated.
          o Failure to forward required tagged frame(s) on all expected
            egress interfaces.
          o Reception of tagged frames by the test apparatus more than
            5 seconds after the cessation of test traffic by the source
            test port.
  
     The set of latency measurements, M, composed from each latency
     measurement taken from every ingress/tested egress interface
     pairing MUST be determined from a valid test trial:
  
           M = { (Timestamp B(E0) - Timestamp A),
                 (Timestamp B(E1) - Timestamp A), ...
                 (Timestamp B(En) - Timestamp A) }
  
     where (E0 ... En) represents the range of all tested egress
     interfaces and Timestamp B represents a tagged frame detection
     event for a given DUT/SUT tested egress interface.
  
     A more continuous profile MAY be built from a series of individual
     measurements.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The set of all latencies with respective time units related
            to the tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT
            interface.
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 18]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
     sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
  
     The results MAY be offered in a tabular format and should preserve
     the relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface for each
     multicast group to assist in trending across multiple trials.
  
  
  5.2. Min/Max Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the difference between the maximum latency measurement
     and the minimum latency measurement from a collected set of
     latencies produced by the Multicast Latency benchmark.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Collect a set of multicast latency measurements over a single test
     duration, as prescribed in section 5.1. This will produce a set of
     multicast latencies, M, where M is composed of individual
     forwarding latencies between DUT frame ingress and DUT frame egress
     port pairs. E.g.:
  
                     M = {L(I,E1),L(I,E2), ..., L(I,En)}
  
     where L is the latency between a tested ingress interface, I, of
     the DUT, and Ex a specific, tested multicast egress interface of
     the DUT.  E1 through En are unique egress interfaces on the DUT.
  
     From the collected multicast latency measurements in set M,
     identify MAX(M), where MAX is a function that yields the largest
     latency value from set M.
  
     Identify MIN(M), when MIN is a function that yields the smallest
     latency value from set M.
  
     The Max/Min value is determined from the following formula:
  
                          Result = MAX(M) - MIN(M)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 19]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The Max/Min value
  
     The following results SHOULD be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The set of all latencies with respective time units related
            to the tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT
            interface.
  
     The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
     sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
  
     The results MAY be offered in a tabular format and should preserve
     the relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface for each
     multicast group.
  
  
  6. Overhead
  
     This section presents methodology relating to the characterization
     of the overhead delays associated with explicit operations found in
     multicast environments.
  
  
  6.1. Group Join Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start
     forwarding multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP group
     membership report has been issued to the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     The Multicast Group Join Delay measurement may be influenced by the
     state of the Multicast Forwarding Database <MFDB> of the DUT/SUT.
     The states of the MFDB may be described as follows:
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 20]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
       . State 0, where the MFDB does not contain the specified
          multicast group address.  In this state, the delay measurement
          includes the time the DUT/SUT requires to add the address to
          the MFDB and begin forwarding.   Delay measured from State 0
          provides information about how the DUT/SUT is able to add new
          addresses into MFDB.
  
       . State 1, where the MFDB does contain the specified multicast
          group address.  In this state, the delay measurement includes
          the time the DUT/SUT requires to update the MFDB with the
          newly joined node<s> and begin forwarding to the new node<s>
          plus packet replication time.  Delay measured from State 1
          provides information about how well the DUT/SUT is able to
          update the MFDB for new nodes while transmitting packets to
          other nodes for the same IP multicast address.  Examples
          include adding a new user to an event that is being promoted
          via multicast packets.
  
     The methodology for the Multicast Group Join Delay measurement
     provides two alternate methods, based on the state of the MFDB, to
     measure the delay metric.  The methods MAY be used independently or
     in conjunction to provide meaningful insight into the DUT/SUT
     ability to manage the MFDB.
  
     Users MAY elect to use either method to determine the Multicast
     Group Join Delay; however the collection method MUST be specified
     as part of the reporting format.
  
     In order to minimize the variation in delay calculations as well as
     minimize burden on the DUT/SUT, the test SHOULD be performed with
     one multicast group.  In addition, all destination test ports MUST
     join the specified multicast group offered to the ingress interface
     of the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Method A:
  
     Method A assumes that the Multicast Forwarding Database <MFDB> of
     the DUT/SUT does not contain or has not learned the specified
     multicast group address; specifically, the MFDB MUST be in State 0.
     In this scenario, the metric represents the time the DUT/SUT takes
     to add the multicast address to the MFDB and begin forwarding the
     multicast packet.  Only one ingress and one egress MUST be used to
     determine this metric.
  
     Prior to sending any IGMP Group Membership Reports used to
     calculate the Multicast Group Join Delay, it MUST be verified
     through externally observable means that the destination test port
     is not currently a member of the specified multicast group.  In
     addition, it MUST be verified through externally observable means
     that the MFDB of the DUT/SUT does not contain the specified
     multicast address.
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 21]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     Method B:
  
     Method B assumes that the MFDB of the DUT/SUT does contain the
     specified multicast group address; specifically, the MFDB MUST be
     in State 1.  In this scenario, the metric represents the time the
     DUT/SUT takes to update the MFDB with the additional nodes and
     their corresponding interfaces and to begin forwarding the
     multicast packet.  One or more egress ports MAY be used to
     determine this metric.
  
     Prior to sending any IGMP Group Membership Reports used to
     calculate the Group Join Delay, it MUST be verified through
     externally observable means that the MFDB contains the specified
     multicast group address.  A single un-instrumented test port MUST
     be used to join the specified multicast group address prior to
     sending any test traffic.  This port will be used only for insuring
     that the MFDB has been populated with the specified multicast group
     address and can successfully forward traffic to the un-instrumented
     port.
  
  
     Join Delay Calculation
  
     Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for the specified
     multicast group address MUST be offered to the ingress interface
     prior to the DUT/SUT receiving any IGMP Group Membership Report
     messages.  It is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured
     aggregated multicast throughput rate (Section 4.3).
  
     After the multicast traffic has been started, the destination test
     port (See Figure 1) MUST send one IGMP Group Membership Report for
     the specified multicast group.
  
     The join delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Group
     Membership message is sent (timestamp A) and the first frame of the
     multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
     (timestamp B).
  
              Group Join delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
  
     Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP group
     membership report is sent from the destination test port; timestamp
     B MUST be the time the first bit of the first valid multicast frame
     is forwarded on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 22]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Offered load to ingress interface
          o Method used to measure the join delay metric
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The group join delay time in microseconds per egress
            interface(s)
  
     The Group Join Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
     form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
     the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
     specify the group join delay time per egress interface for that
     iteration.
  
  
  6.2. Group Leave Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to cease
     forwarding multicast frames after a corresponding IGMP Leave Group
     message has been successfully offered to the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     In order to minimize the variation in delay calculations as well as
     minimize burden on the DUT/SUT, the test SHOULD be performed with
     one multicast group.  In addition, all destination test ports MUST
     join the specified multicast group offered to the ingress interface
     of the DUT/SUT.
  
     Prior to sending any IGMP Leave Group messages used to calculate
     the group leave delay, it MUST be verified through externally
     observable means that the destination test ports are currently
     members of the specified multicast group.  If any of the egress
     interfaces do not forward validation multicast frames then the test
     is invalid.
  
     Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for the specified
     multicast group address MUST be offered to the ingress interface
     prior to receipt or processing of any IGMP Leave Group messages.
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 23]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     It is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured aggregated
     multicast throughput rate (Section 4.3).
  
     After the multicast traffic has been started, each destination test
     port (See Figure 1) MUST send one IGMP Leave Group message for the
     specified multicast group.
  
     The leave delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Leave
     Group message is sent (timestamp A) and the last frame of the
     multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
     (timestamp B).
  
             Group Leave delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
  
     Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP Leave Group
     message is sent from the destination test port; timestamp B MUST be
     the time the last bit of the last valid multicast frame is
     forwarded on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Offered load to ingress interface
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The group leave delay time in microseconds per egress
            interface(s)
  
     The Group Leave Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
     form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
     the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
     specify the group leave delay time per egress interface for that
     iteration.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 24]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  7. Capacity
  
     This section offers a procedure relating to the identification of
     multicast group limits of a DUT/SUT.
  
  7.1. Multicast Group Capacity
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum number of multicast groups a DUT/SUT can
     support while maintaining the ability to forward multicast frames
     to all multicast groups registered to that DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     One or more destination test ports of DUT/SUT will join an initial
     number of multicast groups.
  
     After a minimum delay as measured by section 6.1, the source test
     ports MUST transmit to each group at a specified offered load.
  
     If at least one frame for each multicast group is forwarded
     properly by the DUT/SUT on each participating egress interface, the
     iteration is said to pass at the current capacity.
  
     For each successful iteration, each destination test port will join
     an additional user-defined number of multicast groups and the test
     repeats.  The test stops iterating when one or more of the egress
     interfaces fails to forward traffic on one or more of the
     configured multicast groups.
  
     Once the iteration fails, the last successful iteration is the
     stated Maximum Group Capacity result.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The total number of multicast group addresses that were
            successfully forwarded through the DUT/SUT
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 25]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     The Multicast Group Capacity results for each test SHOULD be
     reported in the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested
     frame sizes per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the number of multicast groups joined per
     destination interface, number of frames transmitted and number of
     frames received for that iteration.
  
  
  8. Interaction
  
     Network forwarding devices are generally required to provide more
     functionality than just the forwarding of traffic.  Moreover,
     network-forwarding devices may be asked to provide those functions
     in a variety of environments.  This section offers procedures to
     assist in the characterization of DUT/SUT behavior in consideration
     of potentially interacting factors.
  
  
  8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single
     multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple egress
     multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
     metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432 [Du96] while forwarding
     meshed unicast traffic.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     The Multicast Latency metrics can be influenced by forcing the
     DUT/SUT to perform extra processing of packets while multicast
     class traffic is being forwarded for latency measurements.
  
     The Burdened Forwarding Multicast Latency test MUST follow the
     described setup for the Multicast Latency test in Section 5.1.  In
     addition, another set of test ports MUST be used to burden the
     DUT/SUT (burdening ports).  The burdening ports will be used to
     transmit unicast class traffic to the DUT/SUT in a fully meshed
     traffic distribution as described in RFC 2285 [Ma98].  The DUT/SUT
     MUST learn the appropriate unicast addresses and verified through
     some externally observable method.
  
     Perform a baseline measurement of Multicast Latency as described in
     Section 5.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, start
     transmitting the unicast class traffic at a user-specified offered
     load on the set of burdening ports and rerun the Multicast Latency
     test.  The offered load to the ingress port MUST be the same as was
     used in the baseline measurement.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 26]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     Similar to Section 5.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
     be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load to ingress interface
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Offered load to burdening ports
          o Total number of burdening ports
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The set of all latencies related to the tested ingress and
            each tested egress DUT/SUT interface for both the baseline
            and burdened response.
  
     The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
     sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
  
     The latency results for each test SHOULD be reported in the form of
     a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per the
     recommended frame sizes in section 3.1.3, and SHOULD preserve the
     relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface(s) to assist in
     trending across multiple trials.
  
  
  8.2. Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start
     forwarding multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP Group
     Membership Report has been issued to the DUT/SUT while forwarding
     meshed unicast traffic.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     The Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay test MUST follow the
     described setup for the Group Join Delay test in Section 6.1.  In
     addition, another set of test ports MUST be used to burden the
     DUT/SUT (burdening ports).  The burdening ports will be used to
     transmit unicast class traffic to the DUT/SUT in a fully meshed
     traffic pattern as described in RFC 2285 [Ma98].  The DUT/SUT MUST
     learn the appropriate unicast addresses and verified through some
     externally observable method.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 27]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Perform a baseline measurement of Group Join Delay as described in
     Section 6.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, start
     transmitting the unicast class traffic at a user-specified offered
     load on the set of burdening ports and rerun the Group Join Delay
     test.  The offered load to the ingress port MUST be the same as was
     used in the baseline measurement.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     Similar to Section 6.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
     be reflected in the test report:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load to ingress interface
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Offered load to burdening ports
          o Total number of burdening ports
          o Method used to measure the join delay metric
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
  
          o The group join delay time in microseconds per egress
            interface(s) for both the baseline and burdened response.
  
     The Group Join Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
     form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
     the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
     specify the group join delay time per egress interface, number of
     frames transmitted and number of frames received for that
     iteration.
  
  
  9. Security Considerations
  
     As this document is solely for the purpose of providing metric
     methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
     implementation, there are no security considerations associated
     with this document specifically.  Results from these methodologies
     may identify a performance capability or limit of a device or
     system in a particular test context.  However, such results might
     not be representative of the tested entity in an operational
     network.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 28]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  10. Acknowledgements
  
     The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF and
     particularly Kevin Dubray, Juniper Networks, are to be thanked for
     the many suggestions they collectively made to help complete this
     document.
  
  
  11. Contributions
  
     The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
     their help and participation of the compilation of this document:
     Hardev Soor, Ixia, and Ralph Daniels, Spirent Communications, both
     who made significant contributions to the earlier versions of this
     document.  In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the
     members of the task team who helped bring this document to
     fruition: Michele Bustos, Tony De La Rosa, David Newman and Jerry
     Perser.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 29]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  12. References
  
  Normative References
  
  [Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
         Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
  
  [Br96] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
         Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
  
  [Br97] Bradner, S. "Use of Keywords in RFCs to Reflect Requirement
         Levels, RFC 2119, March 1997
  
  [Du98] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC
         2432, October 1998.
  
  [IANA1] IANA multicast address assignments,
         http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
  
  [Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
         Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
  
  
  Informative References
  
  [Ca02] Cain, B., et al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
         3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
  
  [De89] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC
         1112, August 1989.
  
  [Fe97] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2",
         RFC 2236, November 1997.
  
  [Hu95] Huitema, C.  "Routing in the Internet." Prentice-Hall, 1995.
  
  [Ka98] Kosiur, D., "IP Multicasting: the Complete Guide to
         Interactive Corporate Networks", John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1998.
  
  [Mt98] Maufer, T.  "Deploying IP Multicast in the Enterprise."
         Prentice-Hall, 1998.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 30]
  

  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  13. Author's Addresses
  
     Debra Stopp
     Ixia
     26601 W. Agoura Rd.
     Calabasas, CA  91302
     USA
  
     Phone: + 1 818 871 1800
     EMail: debby@ixiacom.com
  
  
     Brooks Hickman
     Spirent Communications
     26750 Agoura Rd.
     Calabasas, CA  91302
     USA
  
     Phone: + 1 818 676 2412
     EMail: brooks.hickman@spirentcom.com
  
  
  
  14. Full Copyright Statement
  
     "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
     This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
     others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
     it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
     published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
     of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
     paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
     However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
     as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
     Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
     purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
     procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
     must be followed, or as required to translate it into.รถ
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 31]
  

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