[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 6894

Network Working Group                                         R. Papneja
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                               S. Vapiwala
Expires: May 28, 2013                                         J. Karthik
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            S. Poretsky
                                                    Allot Communications
                                                                  S. Rao
                                                    Qwest Communications
                                                             JL. Le Roux
                                                          France Telecom
                                                        November 29, 2012


      Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS-TE Fast Reroute Protection
                 draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-14.txt

Abstract

   This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast
   Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms for link and node protection.
   This document provides test methodologies and testbed setup for
   measuring failover times of Fast Reroute techniques while considering
   factors (such as underlying links) that might impact
   recovery times for real-time applications bound to MPLS traffic
   engineered (MPLS-TE) tunnels.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.






























Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Existing Definitions and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  General Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Failover Events [RFC 6414] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Failure Detection [RFC 6414] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection benchmarking . . . 10
     5.4.  LSP and Route Scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.5.  Selection of IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.6.  Restoration and Reversion [RFC 6414] . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.7.  Offered Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.8.  Tester Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.9.  Failover Time Measurement Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Reference Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Link Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.1.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.2.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.3.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.4.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.2.  Node Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.2.1.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.2.2.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       6.2.3.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       6.2.4.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.1.  MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.1.1.  Headend PLR Forwarding Performance . . . . . . . . . . 20
       7.1.2.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.2.  Headend PLR with Link Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.3.  Mid-Point PLR with Link Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     7.4.  Headend PLR with Node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     7.5.  Mid-Point PLR with Node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   8.  Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


     12.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     12.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix A.  Fast Reroute Scalability Table  . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix B.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34














































Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast
   Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms.  This document uses much of the
   terminology defined in [RFC 6414].

   Protection mechanisms provide recovery of client services from a
   planned or an unplanned link or node failures.  MPLS FRR protection
   mechanisms are generally deployed in a network infrastructure where
   MPLS is used for provisioning of point-to-point traffic engineered
   tunnels (tunnel).  MPLS FRR protection mechanisms aim to reduce
   service disruption period by minimizing recovery time from most
   common failures.

   Network elements from different manufacturers behave differently to
   network failures, which impacts the network's ability and performance
   for failure recovery.  It therefore becomes imperative for service
   providers to have a common benchmark to understand the performance
   behaviors of network elements.

   There are two factors impacting service availability: frequency of
   failures and duration for which the failures persist.  Failures can
   be classified further into two types: correlated and uncorrelated.
   Correlated and uncorrelated failures may be planned or unplanned.

   Planned failures are generally predictable.  Network implementations
   should be able to handle both planned and unplanned failures and
   recover gracefully within a time frame to maintain service assurance.
   Hence, failover recovery time is one of the most important benchmark
   that a service provider considers in choosing the building blocks
   for their network infrastructure.

   A correlated failure is a result of the occurrence of two or more
   failures.  A typical example is failure of a logical resource (e.g.
   layer-2 links) due to a dependency on a common physical resource
   (e.g. common conduit) that fails.  Within the context of MPLS
   protection mechanisms, failures that arise due to Shared Risk Link
   Groups (SRLG) [RFC 4202] can be considered as correlated failures.

   MPLS FRR [RFC 4090] allows for the possibility that the Label
   Switched Paths can be re-optimized in the minutes following Failover.
   IP Traffic would be re-routed according to the preferred path for the
   post-failure topology.  Thus, MPLS-FRR may include additional steps
   following the occurrence of the failure detection [RFC 6414] and
   failover event [RFC 6414].






Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012




      (1)  Failover Event - Primary Path (Working Path) fails

      (2)  Failure Detection- Failover Event is detected

      (3)

           a.  Failover - Working Path switched to Backup path

           b.  Re-Optimization of Working Path (possible change from
               Backup Path)

      (4)  Restoration [RFC 6414]

      (5)  Reversion [RFC 6414]


2.  Document Scope

   This document provides detailed test cases along with different
   topologies and scenarios that should be considered to effectively
   benchmark MPLS FRR protection mechanisms and failover times on the
   Data Plane.  Different Failover Events and scaling considerations are
   also provided in this document.

   All benchmarking test-cases defined in this document apply to
   Facility backup [RFC 4090].  The test cases cover set of interesting
   failure scenarios and the associated procedures benchmark the
   performance of the Device Under Test (DUT) to recover from failures.
   Data plane traffic is used to benchmark failover times. Testing
   scenarios related to MPLS-TE protection mechanisms when applied
   to MPLS Transport Profile and IP fast reroute applied to MPLS
   networks were not considered and are out of scope of this document.
   However, the test setups considered for MPLS based Layer 3 and
   Layer 2 services consider LDP over MPLS RSVP-TE configurations.

   Benchmarking of correlated failures is out of scope of this document.
   Detection using Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is outside
   the scope of this document, but mentioned in discussion sections.

   The Performance of control plane is outside the scope of this
   benchmarking.

   As described above, MPLS-FRR may include a Re-optimization of the
   Working Path, with possible packet transfer impairments.
   Characterization of Re-optimization is beyond the scope of this memo.


3.  Existing Definitions and Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC 2119].
   While [RFC 2119] defines the use of these key words primarily for
   Standards Track documents however, this Informational track document
   may use some of uses these keywords.

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the commonly used MPLS
   terminology, some of which is defined in [RFC 4090].

   This document uses much of the terminology defined in [RFC 6414].
   This document also uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG
   Work [RFC 1242], [RFC 2285], [RFC 4689]. Appendix B provide
   abbreviations used in the document


4.  General Reference Topology

   Figure 1 illustrates the basic reference testbed and is applicable to
   all the test cases defined in this document.  The Tester is comprised
   of a Traffic Generator (TG) & Test Analyzer (TA) and Emulator.  A
   Tester is connected to the test network and depending upon the test
   case, the DUT could vary.  The Tester sends and receives IP traffic
   to the tunnel ingress and performs signaling protocol emulation to
   simulate real network scenarios in a lab environment.  The Tester may
   also support MPLS-TE signaling to act as the ingress node to the MPLS
   tunnel. The lines in figures represent physical connections.




          +---------------------------+
          |              +------------|---------------+
          |              |            |               |
          |              |            |               |
      +--------+     +--------+    +--------+    +--------+   +--------+
  TG--|   R1   |-----|   R2   |----|   R3   |    |    R4  |   |  R5    |
      |        |-----|        |----|        |----|        |---|        |
      +--------+     +--------+    +--------+    +--------+   +--------+
          |             |              |            |            |
          |             |              |            |            |
          |         +--------+         |            |           TA
          +---------|   R6   |---------+            |
                    |        |----------------------+
                    +--------+




                       Fig. 1  Fast Reroute Topology




Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   The tester MUST record the number of lost, duplicate, and out-of-order
   packets.  It should further record arrival and departure times so
   that Failover Time, Additive Latency, and Reversion Time can be
   measured.  The tester may be a single device or a test system
   emulating all the different roles along a primary or backup path.

   The label stack is dependent of the following 3 entities:

      (1)  Type of protection (Link Vs Node)

      (2)  # of remaining hops of the primary tunnel from the PLR[RFC
           6414]

      (3)  # of remaining hops of the backup tunnel from the PLR

   Due to this dependency, it is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarking of
   failover times be performed on all the topologies provided in section
   6.


5.  Test Considerations

   This section discusses the fundamentals of MPLS Protection testing:

      (1)  The types of network events that causes failover (section 5.1)

      (2)  Indications for failover (section 5.2)

      (3)  the use of data traffic (section 5.3)

      (4)  LSP Scaling (Section 5.4)

      (5)  IGP Selection (Section 5.5)

      (6)  Reversion of LSP (Section 5.6)

      (7)  Traffic generation (section 5.7)


5.1.  Failover Events [RFC 6414]

   The failover to the backup tunnel is primarily triggered by either
   link or node failures observed downstream of the Point of Local
   repair (PLR).  The failure events are listed below.

   Link Failure Events






Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


          - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with physical/link Alarm
          - Interface Shutdown on remote side with physical/link Alarm
          - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with RSVP hello enabled
          - Interface Shutdown on remote side with RSVP hello enabled
          - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with BFD
          - Interface Shutdown on remote side with BFD
          - Fiber Pull on the PLR side (Both TX & RX or just the TX)
          - Fiber Pull on the remote side (Both TX & RX or just the RX)
          - Online insertion and removal (OIR) on PLR side
          - OIR on remote side
          - Sub-interface failure on PLR side (e.g. shutting down of a VLAN)
          - Sub-interface failure on remote side
          - Parent interface shutdown on PLR side (an interface bearing multiple
            sub-interfaces)
          - Parent interface shutdown on remote side

   Node Failure Events

             - A System reload initiated either by a graceful shutdown
               or by a power failure.
             - A system crash due to a software failure or an assert.

5.2.  Failure Detection [RFC 6414]

   Link failure detection time depends on the link type and failure
   detection protocols running.  For SONET/SDH, the alarm type (such as
   LOS, AIS, or RDI) can be used.  Other link types have layer-two
   alarms, but they may not provide a short enough failure detection
   time.  Ethernet based links enabled with MPLS/IP do not have layer 2
   failure indicators, and therefore relies on layer 3 signaling for
   failure detection.  However for directly connected devices, remote
   fault indication in the ethernet auto-negotiation scheme could be
   considered as a type of layer 2 link failure indicator.

   MPLS has different failure detection techniques such as BFD, or use
   of RSVP hellos.  These methods can be used for the layer 3 failure
   indicators required by Ethernet based links, or for some other non-
   Ethernet based links to help improve failure detection time.
   However, these fast failure detection mechanisms are out of scope.

   The test procedures in this document can be used for a local failure
   or remote failure scenarios for comprehensive benchmarking and to
   evaluate failover performance independent of the failure detection
   techniques.







Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


5.3.  Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection benchmarking

   Currently end customers use packet loss as a key metric for Failover
   Time [RFC 6414].  Failover Packet Loss [RFC 6414] is an externally
   observable event and has direct impact on application performance.
   MPLS protection is expected to minimize the packet loss in the event
   of a failure.  For this reason it is important to develop a standard
   router benchmarking methodology for measuring MPLS protection that
   uses packet loss as a metric.  At a known rate of forwarding, packet
   loss can be measured and the failover time can be determined.
   Measurement of control plane signaling to establish backup paths is
   not enough to verify failover.  Failover is best determined when
   packets are actually traversing the backup path.

   An additional benefit of using packet loss for calculation of
   failover time is that it allows use of a black-box test environment.
   Data traffic is offered at line-rate to the device under test (DUT)
   an emulated network failure event is forced to occur, and packet loss
   is externally measured to calculate the convergence time.  This setup
   is independent of the DUT architecture.

   In addition, this methodology considers the packets in error and
   duplicate packets [RFC 4689] that could have been generated during
   the failover process.  The methodologies consider lost, out-of-order
   [RFC 4689] and duplicate packets to be impaired packets that
   contribute to the Failover Time.

5.4.  LSP and Route Scaling

   Failover time performance may vary with the number of established
   primary and backup tunnel label switched paths (LSP) and installed
   routes.  However the procedure outlined here should be used for any
   number of LSPs (L) and number of routes protected by PLR(R).  The
   amount of L and R must be recorded.

5.5.  Selection of IGP

   The underlying IGP could be ISIS-TE or OSPF-TE for the methodology
   proposed here.  See [RFC 6412] for IGP options to consider and
   report.

5.6.  Restoration and Reversion [RFC 6414]

   Path restoration provides a method to restore an alternate primary
   LSP upon failure and to switch traffic from the Backup Path to the
   restored Primary Path (Reversion).  In MPLS-FRR, Reversion can be
   implemented as Global Reversion or Local Reversion.  It is important
   to include Restoration and Reversion as a step in each test case to



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   measure the amount of packet loss, out of order packets, or duplicate
   packets that is produced.

   Note: In addition to restoration and reversion, re-optimization can
   take place while the failure is still not recovered but it depends on
   the user configuration, and re-optimization timers.

5.7.  Offered Load

   It is suggested that there be three or more traffic streams as long
   as there is a steady and constant rate of flow for all the streams.
   In order to monitor the DUT performance for recovery times, a set of
   route prefixes should be advertised before traffic is sent.  The
   traffic should be configured towards these routes.

   Prefix-dependency behaviors are key in IP and tests with route-specific
   flows spread across the routing table will reveal this dependency.
   Generating traffic to all of the prefixes reachable by the protected
   tunnel (probably in a Round-Robin fashion, where the traffic is
   destined to all the prefixes but one prefix at a time in a cyclic
   manner) is not recommended.  Round-Robin traffic generation
   is not recommended to all prefixes, as time to hit all the prefixes
   may be higher than the failover time. This phenomenon will reduce
   the granularity of the measured results and the results observed
   may not be accurate.


5.8.  Tester Capabilities

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Tester used to execute each test case have
   the following capabilities:



         1.Ability to establish MPLS-TE tunnels and push/pop labels.

         2.Ability to produce Failover Event [RFC 6414].

         3.Ability to insert a timestamp in each data packet's IP
         payload.

         4.An internal time clock to control timestamping, time
         measurements, and time calculations.

         5.Ability to disable or tune specific Layer-2 and Layer-3
         protocol functions on any interface(s).



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


         6.Ability to react upon the receipt of path error from the PLR

   The Tester MAY be capable to make non-data plane convergence
   observations and use those observations for measurements.

5.9.  Failover Time Measurement Methods

   Failover Time is calculated using one of the following three methods

   1.  Packet-Loss Based method (PLBM): (Number of packets dropped/
       packets per second * 1000) milliseconds.  This method could also
       be referred as Loss-Derived method.

   2.  Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM): This method relies on the ability
       of the Traffic generators to provide statistics which reveal the
       duration of failure in milliseconds based on when the packet loss
       occurred (interval between non-zero packet loss and zero loss).

   3.  Timestamp Based Method (TBM): This method of failover calculation
       is based on the timestamp that gets transmitted as payload in the
       packets originated by the generator.  The Traffic Analyzer
       records the timestamp of the last packet received before the
       failover event and the first packet after the failover and
       derives the time based on the difference between these 2
       timestamps.  Note: The payload could also contain sequence
       numbers for out-of-order packet calculation and duplicate
       packets.

   The timestamp based method method would be able to detect Reversion
   impairments beyond loss, thus it is RECOMMENDED method as a Failover
   Time method.


6.  Reference Test Setup

   In addition to the general reference topology shown in figure 1, this
   section provides detailed insight into various proposed test setups
   that should be considered for comprehensively benchmarking the
   failover time in different roles along the primary tunnel

   This section proposes a set of topologies that covers all the
   scenarios for local protection.  All of these topologies can be
   mapped to the reference topology shown in Figure 1.  Topologies
   provided in this section refer to the testbed required to benchmark
   failover time when the DUT is configured as a PLR in either Headend
   or midpoint role.  Provided with each topology below is the label
   stack at the PLR.  Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) MAY be used and must
   be reported when used.



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   Figures 2 thru 9 use the following convention and are subset of
   figure 1:

           a) HE is Headend
           b) TE is Tail-End
           c) MID is Mid point
           d) MP is Merge Point
           e) PLR is Point of Local Repair
           f) PRI is Primary Path
           g) BKP denotes Backup Path and Nodes
           h) UR is Upstream Router

6.1.  Link Protection

6.1.1.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
        tunnels



               +-------+  +--------+    +--------+
               |  R1   |  |   R2   | PRI|   R3   |
               | UR/HE |--| HE/MID |----|  MP/TE |
               |       |  |  PLR   |----|        |
               +-------+  +--------+ BKP+--------+

                             Figure 2.

          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)         0             0
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)       1             1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)        2             2
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)        1             1
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)         2             2
          Mid-point LSPs           0             0


   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2 and R3 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R3 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2 and R3 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR and
           TE respectively






Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


6.1.2.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
        tunnels



             +-------+    +--------+    +--------+
             |  R1   |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |
             | UR/HE |    | HE/MID |PRI |  MP/TE |
             |       |----|  PLR   |----|        |
             +-------+    +--------+    +--------+
                              |BKP               |
                              |    +--------+    |
                              |    |   R6   |    |
                              |----|  BKP   |----|
                                   |   MID  |
                                   +--------+

                                    Figure 3.


          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       0              1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     1              2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      2              3
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      1              2
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       2              3
          Mid-point LSPs         0              1


   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2 and R3 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R3 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2 and R3 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR
           and TE respectively

6.1.3.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop backup TE
        tunnels










Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
             |  R1    |    | R2     |PRI |   R3   |PRI   |   R4   |
             |  UR/HE |----| HE/MID |----| MP/MID |------|   TE   |
             |        |    | PLR    |----|        |      |        |
             +--------+    +--------+ BKP+--------+      +--------+

                                   Figure 4.






          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1                1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2                2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3                3
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2                2
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3                3
          Mid-point LSPs         1                1


   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2, R3 and R4 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3 and R4 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR
           and TE respectively

6.1.4.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop backup TE
        tunnels

















Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


             +--------+    +--------+PRI +--------+  PRI +--------+
             |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |      |   R4   |
             | UR/HE  |----| HE/MID |----|  MP/MID|------|   TE   |
             |        |    | PLR    |    |        |      |        |
             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
                           BKP|              |
                              |   +--------+ |
                              |   |   R6   | |
                              +---|  BKP   |-
                                  |  MID   |
                                  +--------+

                                   Figure 5.


          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1              2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2              3
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3              4
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2              3
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3              4
          Mid-point LSPs         1              2



   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2, R3 and R4 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3 and R4 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR
           and TE respectively

6.2.  Node Protection

6.2.1.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
        tunnels












Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
             |  R1    |    |  R2    |PRI |   R3   | PRI  |   R4   |
             | UR/HE  |----| HE/MID |----|  MID   |------|  MP/TE |
             |        |    |  PLR   |    |        |      |        |
             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
                             |BKP                          |
                              -----------------------------

                                Figure 6.

          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             0
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             2
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             1
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             2
          Mid-point LSPs         1             0



   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2, R3 and R3 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3 and R4 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR
           and TE respectively

6.2.2.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
        tunnels



             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+
             |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |    |   R4   |
             | UR/HE  |    | HE/MID |PRI |  MID   |PRI |  MP/TE |
             |        |----|  PLR   |----|        |----|        |
             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+
                             |                            |
                          BKP|         +--------+         |
                             |         |   R6   |         |
                              ---------|  BKP   |---------
                                       |  MID   |
                                       +--------+

                                Figure 7.



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             3
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             2
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             3
          Mid-point LSPs         1             1



   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2, R3 and R4 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3 and R4 act as shown in above figure HE, Midpoint/PLR
           and TE respectively

6.2.3.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
        tunnels



         +--------+  +--------+PRI+--------+PRI+--------+PRI+--------+
         |  R1    |  |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
         | UR/HE  |--| HE/MID |---| MID    |---|  MP    |---|  TE    |
         |        |  |  PLR   |   |        |   |        |   |        |
         +--------+  +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
                     BKP|                          |
                         --------------------------

                                 Figure 8.

          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             1
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             3
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             2
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             3
          Mid-point LSPs         1             1




   Note: Please note the following:



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


        a) For P-P case, R2, R3, R4 and R5 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R5 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 act as shown in above figure HE,
           Midpoint/PLR and TE respectively

6.2.4.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
        tunnels



      +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
      |  R1    |   |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
      | UR/HE  |   | HE/MID |PRI|  MID   |PRI|  MP    |PRI|  TE    |
      |        |-- |  PLR   |---|        |---|        |---|        |
      +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
                    BKP|                          |
                       |         +--------+       |
                       |         |  R6    |       |
                        ---------|  BKP   |-------
                                 |  MID   |
                                 +--------+

                                Figure 9.

          Traffic            Num of Labels   Num of labels
                             before failure  after failure
          IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             2
          Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             3
          Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             4
          Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             3
          Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             4
          Mid-point LSPs         1             2




   Note: Please note the following:

        a) For P-P case, R2, R3, R4 and R5 acts as P routers
        b) For PE-PE case,R2 acts as PE and R5 acts as a remote PE
        c) For PE-P case,R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router and R5 acts as remote
           PE router (Please refer to figure 1 for complete setup)
        d) For Mid-point case, R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 act as shown in above figure HE,
           Midpoint/PLR and TE respectively





Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


7.  Test Methodology

   The procedure described in this section can be applied to all the 8
   base test cases and the associated topologies.  The backup as well as
   the primary tunnels are configured to be alike in terms of bandwidth
   usage.  In order to benchmark failover with all possible label stack
   depth applicable as seen with current deployments, it is RECOMMENDED
   to perform all of the test cases provided in this section.  The
   forwarding performance test cases in section 7.1 MUST be performed
   prior to performing the failover test cases.

   The considerations of Section 4 of [RFC 2544] are applicable when
   evaluating the results obtained using these methodologies as well.

7.1.  MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance

   Benchmarking Failover Time [RFC 6414] for MPLS protection first
   requires baseline measurement of the forwarding performance of the
   test topology including the DUT.  Forwarding performance is
   benchmarked by the Throughput as defined in [RFC 5695] and measured
   in units pps.  This section provides two test cases to benchmark
   forwarding performance.  These are with the DUT configured as a
   Headend PLR, Mid-Point PLR, and Egress PLR.

7.1.1.  Headend PLR Forwarding Performance

   Objective:

      To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as headend) over
      primary LSP and backup LSP.

   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select or enable IP, Layer 3 VPN or Layer 2 VPN services with
          DUT as Headend PLR.

      C.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          Generator/analyzer.  (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
          a simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
          one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
          downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
          a link connected to the traffic analyzer).

   Procedure:



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012




      1.   Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
           selected.

      2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
           topology.

      3.   Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
           protected.

      4.   Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

      5.   Setup traffic streams as described in section 5.7.

      6.   Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the Throughput
           supported by the DUT (section 6, RFC 2544).

      7.   Record the Throughput over the primary LSP.

      8.   Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.

      9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
           and measure the Additive Backup Delay (RFC 6414).

      10.  30 seconds after Failover, stop the offered load and measure
           the Throughput, Packet Loss, Out-of-Order Packets, and
           Duplicate Packets over the Backup LSP.

      11.  Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
           the Throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
           equal.

      12.  Record the final Throughput, which corresponds to the offered
           load that will be used for the Headend PLR failover test
           cases.

7.1.2.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance

   Objective:

      To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as mid-point) over
      primary LSP and backup LSP.

   Test Setup:






Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012




      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          generator.

   Procedure:



      1.   Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
           selected.

      2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
           topology.

      3.   Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
           protected.

      4.   Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

      5.   Setup traffic streams as described in section 5.7.

      6.   Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the Throughput
           supported by the DUT (section 6, RFC 2544).

      7.   Record the Throughput over the primary LSP.

      8.   Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.

      9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
           and measure the Additive Backup Delay (RFC 6414).

      10.  30 seconds after Failover, stop the offered load and measure
           the Throughput, Packet Loss, Out-of-Order Packets, and
           Duplicate Packets over the Backup LSP.

      11.  Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
           the Throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
           equal.

      12.  Record the final Throughput which corresponds to the offered
           load that will be used for the Mid-Point PLR failover test
           cases.






Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


7.2.  Headend PLR with Link Failure

   Objective:

      To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
      described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the
      Headend PLR.

   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select or enable IP, Layer 3 VPN or Layer 2 VPN services with
          DUT as Headend PLR.

      C.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          Generator/analyzer.  (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
          a simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
          one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
          downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
          a link connected to the traffic analyzer).

   Test Configuration:



      1.  Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
          as required by the topology selected.

      2.  Configure the test setup to support Reversion.

      3.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure:

      Test Case "7.1.1.  Headend PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.



      1.   Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
           selected.





Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


      2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
           topology.

      3.   Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
           protected.

      4.   Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

      5.   Setup traffic streams for the offered load as described in
           section 5.7.

      6.   Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
           [RFC 1242] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.

      7.   Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
           loss.

      8.   Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.

      9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
           and measure the Additive Backup Delay.

      10.  30 seconds after Failover [RFC 6414], stop the offered load
           and measure the total Failover Packet Loss [RFC 6414].

      11.  Calculate the Failover Time [RFC 6414] benchmark using the
           selected Failover Time Calculation Method (TBLM, PLBM, or
           TBM) [RFC 6414].

      12.  Restart the offered load and restore the primary LSP to
           verify Reversion [RFC 6414] occurs and measure the Reversion
           Packet Loss [RFC 6414].

      13.  Calculate the Reversion Time [RFC 6414] benchmark using the
           selected Failover Time Calculation Method (TBLM, PLBM, or
           TBM) [RFC 6414].

      14.  Verify Headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
           place again.

   IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
   link failure triggers defined in section 5.1.

7.3.  Mid-Point PLR with Link Failure

   Objective:





Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


      To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
      described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the Mid-
      Point PLR.

   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          generator.

   Test Configuration:



      1.  Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
          as required by the topology selected.

      2.  Configure the test setup to support Reversion.

      3.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure:

      Test Case "7.1.2.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.



      1.  Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
          selected.

      2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
          topology.

      3.  Perform steps 3 through 14 from section 7.2 Headend PLR with
          Link Failure.

   IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
   link failure triggers defined in section 5.1.







Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


7.4.  Headend PLR with Node Failure

   Objective:

      To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
      described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the
      Headend PLR.

   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select or enable IP, Layer 3 VPN or Layer 2 VPN services with
          DUT as Headend PLR.

      C.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          generator/analyzer.

   Test Configuration:



      1.  Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
          as required by the topology selected.

      2.  Configure the test setup to support Reversion.

      3.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure:

      Test Case "7.1.1.  Headend PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.



      1.  Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
          selected.

      2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
          topology.

      3.  Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
          protected.



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


      4.  Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

      5.  Setup traffic streams for the offered load as described in
          section 5.7.

      6.  Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
          [RFC 1242] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.

      7.  Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
          loss.

      8.  Trigger a node failure as described in section 5.1.

      9.  Perform steps 9 through 14 in 7.2 Headend PLR with Link
          Failure.

   IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
   node failure triggers defined in section 5.1.

7.5.  Mid-Point PLR with Node Failure

   Objective:

      To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
      described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the Mid-
      Point PLR.

   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology from section 6.1 to 6.2.

      B.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          generator.

   Test Configuration:



      1.  Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
          as required by the topology selected.

      2.  Configure the test setup to support Reversion.

      3.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.




Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   Procedure:

      Test Case "7.1.1.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.



      1.  Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
          selected.

      2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
          topology.

      3.  Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
          protected.

      4.  Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

      5.  Setup traffic streams for the offered load as described in
          section 5.7.

      6.  Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
          [RFC 1242] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.

      7.  Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
          loss.

      8.  Trigger a node failure as described in section 5.1.

      9.  Perform steps 9 through 14 in 7.2 Headend PLR with Link
          Failure.

   IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
   node failure triggers defined in section 5.1.


8.  Reporting Format

   For each test, it is RECOMMENDED that the results be reported in the
   following format.



             Parameter                          Units

             IGP used for the test              ISIS-TE/ OSPF-TE




Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


             Interface types                    Gige,POS,ATM,VLAN etc.

             Packet Sizes offered to the DUT    Bytes (at layer 3)

             Offered Load (Throughput)          packets per second

             IGP routes advertised              Number of IGP routes

             Penultimate Hop Popping            Used/Not Used

             RSVP hello timers                  Milliseconds

             Number of Protected tunnels        Number of tunnels

             Number of VPN routes installed     Number of VPN routes
             on the Headend

             Number of VC tunnels               Number of VC tunnels

             Number of mid-point tunnels        Number of tunnels

             Number of Prefixes protected by    Number of LSPs
             Primary

             Topology being used                Section number, and
                                                figure reference

             Failover Event                     Event type

             Re-optimization                    Yes/No

        Benchmarks (to be recorded for each test case):

        Failover-
            Failover Time                        seconds
            Failover Packet Loss                 packets
            Additive Backup Delay                seconds
            Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
            Duplicate Packets                    packets
            Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used

        Reversion-
            Reversion Time                       seconds
            Reversion Packet Loss                packets
            Additive Backup Delay                seconds
            Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
            Duplicate Packets                    packets
            Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


9.  Security Considerations

   Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
   technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
   environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
   specified in the sections above.

   The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
   and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
   traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
   management network.

   Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
   solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.

   Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
   benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network security arising
   from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
   networks.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any new allocations by IANA.


11.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Jean Philip Vasseur for his invaluable input
   to the document, Curtis Villamizar for his contribution in suggesting
   text on definition and need for benchmarking Correlated failures and
   Bhavani Parise for his textual input and review.  Additionally we
   would like to thank Al Morton, Arun Gandhi, Amrit Hanspal, Karu
   Ratnam, Raveesh Janardan, Andrey Kiselev, and Mohan Nanduri for their
   formal reviews of this document.


12.  References

12.1.  Informative References

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

   [RFC 4689]  Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
               "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic
               Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.

   [RFC 4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
              of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
              RFC 4202, October 2005.

12.2.  Normative References

   [RFC 1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
               interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [RFC 2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012

   [RFC 4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
               Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
               May 2005.

   [RFC 5695]  Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
               Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
               November 2009.

   [RFC 6414]  Poretsky, S., Papneja, R., Karthik, J., and S. Vapiwala,
               "Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance",
               RFC 6414, November 2011.

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

   [RFC 6412]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
               for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
               Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.


Appendix A.  Fast Reroute Scalability Table

   This section provides the recommended numbers for evaluating the
   scalability of fast reroute implementations.  It also recommends the
   typical numbers for IGP/VPNv4 Prefixes, LSP Tunnels and VC entries.
   Based on the features supported by the device under test (DUT),
   appropriate scaling limits can be used for the test bed.

   A1.  FRR IGP Table


           No. of Headend TE Tunnels       IGP Prefixes

           1                               100

           1                               500

           1                               1000

           1                               2000

           1                               5000

           2 (Load Balance)                100

           2 (Load Balance)                500

           2 (Load Balance)                1000

           2 (Load Balance)                2000

           2 (Load Balance)                5000

           100                             100

           500                             500

           1000                            1000

           2000                            2000



Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   A2.  FRR VPN Table

           No. of Headend TE Tunnels       VPNv4 Prefixes

           1                               100

           1                               500

           1                               1000

           1                               2000

           1                               5000

           1                               10000

           1                               20000

           1                               Max

           2 (Load Balance)                100

           2 (Load Balance)                500

           2 (Load Balance)                1000

           2 (Load Balance)                2000

           2 (Load Balance)                5000

           2 (Load Balance)                10000

           2 (Load Balance)                20000

           2 (Load Balance)                Max



   A3.  FRR Mid-Point LSP Table

   No of Mid-point TE LSPs could be configured at recommended levels -
   100, 500, 1000, 2000, or max supported number.

   A2.  FRR VC Table









Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


           No. of Headend TE Tunnels       VC entries

           1                               100
           1                               500
           1                               1000
           1                               2000
           1                               Max
           100                             100
           500                             500
           1000                            1000
           2000                            2000



Appendix B.  Abbreviations



      AIS      - Alarm Indication Signal
      BFD      - Bidirectional Fault Detection
      BGP      - Border Gateway protocol
      CE       - Customer Edge
      DUT      - Device Under Test
      FRR      - Fast Reroute
      IGP      - Interior Gateway Protocol
      IP       - Internet Protocol
      LOS      - Loss of Signal
      LSP      - Label Switched Path
      MP       - Merge Point
      MPLS     - Multi Protocol Label Switching
      N-Nhop   - Next - Next Hop
      Nhop     - Next Hop
      OIR      - Online Insertion and Removal
      P        - Provider
      PE       - Provider Edge
      PHP      - Penultimate Hop Popping
      PLR      - Point of Local Repair
      RSVP     - Resource reSerVation Protocol
      SRLG     - Shared Risk Link Group
      TA       - Traffic Analyzer
      TE       - Traffic Engineering
      TG       - Traffic Generator
      VC       - Virtual Circuit
      VPN      - Virtual Private Network







Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Rajiv Papneja
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com


   Samir Vapiwala
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Email: svapiwal@cisco.com


   Jay Karthik
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Email: jkarthik@cisco.com


   Scott Poretsky
   Allot Communications
   USA

   Email: sporetsky@allot.com


   Shankar Rao
   Qwest Communications
   950 17th Street
   Suite 1900
   Denver, CO  80210
   USA

   Email: shankar.rao@du.edu







Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms          November 2012


   JL. Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2 av Pierre Marzin
   22300 Lannion
   France

   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange.com












































Papneja, et al.            Expires May 9, 2013                 [Page 35]


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