[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking

Network Working Group                                      M. Georgescu
Internet Draft                                                    NAIST
Intended status: Informational                            March 6, 2015
Expires: September 2015



         Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
          draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-00.txt


Abstract

   There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of
   network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the
   IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This
   document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the
   performance of IPv6 transition technologies.  The methodology also
   includes a tentative metric for benchmarking scalability.

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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.




Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   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.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
   3. Test Environment Setup.........................................4
      3.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies......................5
      3.2. Encapsulation/Translation Based Transition Technologies...5
   4. Test Traffic...................................................6
      4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................6
         4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................7
         4.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used over SONET....................7
      4.2. Protocol Addresses........................................7
      4.3. Traffic Setup.............................................7
   5. Modifiers......................................................8
   6. Benchmarking Tests.............................................8
      6.1. Throughput................................................8
      6.2. Latency...................................................8
      6.3. Frame Loss Rate...........................................8
      6.4. Back-to-back Frames.......................................9
      6.5. System Recovery...........................................9
      6.6. Reset.....................................................9
   7. Scalability...................................................10
      7.1. Test Setup...............................................10
         7.1.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies................10
         7.1.2. Encapsulation/Translation Transition Technologies...11
      7.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation.....................12
   8. Security Considerations.......................................12
   9. IANA Considerations...........................................13
   10. Conclusions..................................................13
   11. References...................................................13
      11.1. Normative References....................................13
      11.2. Informative References..................................13
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
   Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................15
      A.1. Ethernet.................................................15
      A.2. SONET....................................................16






Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
1. Introduction

   The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors
   and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and
   IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544]
   is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains
   complementary recommendations which are specific to the latest IP
   version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition
   technologies.

   IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes
   cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this
   issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and
   implemented, many of which are still in development.

   This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6
   transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights
   about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful
   feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going
   through the IPv6 transition process.

1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies

   Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known
   as dual stack) and encapsulation, are presented in [RFC4213].
   IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the
   transition technologies employ at least one variation of these
   mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333])
   are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of
   the transition technologies can prove useful.

   Tentatively, we can consider a basic production IP-based network as
   being constructed using the following components:

   o  a Customer Edge (CE) segment

   o  a Core network segment

   o  a Provider Edge (PE) segment

   According to the technology used for the core network traversal the
   transition technologies can be categorized as follows:

   1. Single-stack: either IPv4 or IPv6 is used to traverse the core
      network, and translation is used at one of the edges

   2. Dual-stack: the core network devices implement both IP protocols




Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   3. Encapsulation-based: an encapsulation mechanism is used to
      traverse the core network; CE nodes encapsulate the IPvX packets
      in IPvY packets, while PE nodes are responsible for the
      decapsulation process.

   4. Translation-based: a translation mechanism is employed for the
      traversal of the core network; CE nodes translate IPvX packets to
      IPvY packets and PE nodes translate the packets back to IPvX.

   The performance of Dual-stack transition technologies can be fully
   evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by
   [RFC2544] and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the
   other 3 categories: Single-stack, Encapsulation-based, and
   Translation-based transition technologies.

   Another important aspect by which the IPv6 transition technologies
   can be categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping
   algorithms. The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms
   (e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between
   IP addreesses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port
   number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of
   reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful
   mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition
   technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed
   can be an important performance indicator for these technologies.
   Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional
   benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED.

2. Conventions used in this document

   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 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

3. Test Setup

   The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition
   technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in
   Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options
   presented in [RFC2544] can be applied here as well. However, the
   Device under test (DUT) setup options should be explained in the
   context of the 3 targeted categories of IPv6 transition
   technologies: Single-stack, Encapsulation-based and Translation-
   based transition technologies.



Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   Although both single tester and sender/receiver setups are
   applicable to this methodology, the single tester setup will be used
   to describe the DUT setup options.

   For the simple test setups described in the next two subsections,
   static routing MAY be employed.  However, for more complex test
   setups (e.g. scalability test setups) dynamic routing is a more
   reasonable choice. However, the presence of routing and management
   frames can represent unwanted background data that can affect the
   benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in
   [RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management
   frames SHOULD be used here as well.

3.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies

   For the evaluation of Single-stack transition technologies a single
   DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is responsible for
   translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In this context, the
   tester device should be configured to support both IPvX and IPvY.



                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
              +------------|IPvX   tester   IPvY|<-------------+
              |            |                    |              |
              |            +--------------------+              |
              |                                                |
              |            +--------------------+              |
              |            |                    |              |
              +----------->|IPvX     DUT    IPvY|--------------+
                           |     (translator)   |
                           +--------------------+
                           Figure 1. Test setup 1


3.2. Encapsulation/Translation Based Transition Technologies

   For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation-based and
   Translation-based transition technologies a dual DUT setup (see
   Figure 2) SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of
   IPvX packets. The DUT CE is responsible for the encapsulation or
   translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
   decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the DUT PE and
   forwarded to the tester.






Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015

                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
     +---------------------|IPvX   tester   IPvX|<------------------+
     |                     |                    |                   |
     |                     +--------------------+                   |
     |                                                              |
     |      +--------------------+      +--------------------+      |
     |      |                    |      |                    |      |
     +----->|IPvX    DUT CE  IPvY|----->|IPvY   DUT PE   IPvX|------+
            |    trans/encaps    |      |    trans/decaps    |
            +--------------------+      +--------------------+
                            Figure 2. Test setup 2


   In the case of translation based transition technology, the DUT CE
   and DUT PE machines MAY be tested separately as well. These tests
   can represent a fine grain performance analysis of the IPvX to IPvY
   translation direction versus the IPvY to IPvX translation direction.
   The tests SHOULD follow the test setup presented in Figure 1.

4. Test Traffic

   The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD
   meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements
   are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside
   of the scope of this document.

4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes

   [RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly
   used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network).
   [RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and
   FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack
   transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies
   the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST
   be considered.

   The encapsulation/translation process generates different size
   frames on different segments of the test setup. For example, the
   single-stack transition technologies will create different frame
   sizes on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX packets
   are translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the bandwidth of
   the employed media is not exceeded. To prevent exceeding the
   limitations imposed by the media, the frame size overhead needs to
   be taken into account when calculating the maximum theoretical frame
   rates. The calculation methods for the two media types, Ethernet and
   SONET, as well as a calculation example are detailed in Appendix A.



Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   In the context of frame size overhead MTU recommendations are needed
   in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the virtual
   encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical network
   interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the larger
   MTU between the physical NICs and virtual encapsulation/translation
   interfaces SHOULD be set for all interfaces of the DUT and tester.



4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet

   Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
   SHOULD be used for benchmarking Ethernet traffic: 64, 128, 256, 512,
   1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and 9216.

   The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
   overhead are presented in Appendix A1.

4.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used over SONET

   Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the frame sizes for SONET
   traffic SHOULD be: 47, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048,
   4096 bytes.

   An example of theoretical maximum frame rates calculation is shown
   in Appendix A2.

4.2. Protocol Addresses

   The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of
   [RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4.

   Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible
   for the transition technologies which employ translation.

4.3. Traffic Setup

   Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
   SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional
   traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance
   assessment.

   Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more
   reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols.
   Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of
   this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.

   Considering that the stateful transition technologies need to manage
   the state table for each connection, a connection-oriented transport


Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   layer protocol needs to be used with the test traffic. Consequently,
   TCP test traffic SHOULD be employed for the tests described in
   Section 7 of this document.

5. Modifiers

   The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
   introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
   aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
   extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180]
   describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their
   recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies
   testing as well.

6. Benchmarking Tests

   The benchmarking tests condition described in [RFC2544] (Sections
   24, 25, 26) are also recommended here. The following sub-sections
   contain the list of all recommended benchmarking tests.

6.1. Throughput

   Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.2. Latency

   Objective: To determine the latency as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.3. Frame Loss Rate

   Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in
   [RFC1242], of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates
   and frame sizes.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].






Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
6.4. Back-to-back Frames

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
   back frames as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.5. System Recovery

   Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
   overload condition.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.6. Reset

   Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
   device or software reset.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
   Technologies

   This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
   IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
   section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
   parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5).

   In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function a network node can
   have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the
   network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this
   function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511].
   Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2,
   5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD
   be performed:

7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity

   Objective: To determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP
   connections supported through or with the DUT, as defined in [RFC
   2647]. This test is supposed to find the maximum number of entries
   the DUT can store in its state table.


Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].

7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate

   Objective: To determine the maximum TCP connection establishment
   rate through or with the DUT, as defined by RFC [2647].  This test
   is expected to find the maximum rate at which the DUT can update its
   connection table.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].

8. Scalability

   Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
   network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
   yet been approached.

   Scalability can be defined as the ability of each transition
   technology to accommodate network growth.

   Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering
   this, scalability can be measured by quantifying the network
   performance degradation while the network grows.

   The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
   modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
   degradation can be quantified.

8.1. Test Setup

   The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create
   network growth.

8.1.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies

   In the case of single-stack transition technologies the network
   growth can be generated by increasing the number of network flows
   generated by the tester machine (see Figure 3).









Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
                        +-------------------------+
           +------------|NF1                   NF1|<-------------+
           |  +---------|NF2      tester       NF2|<----------+  |
           |  |      ...|                         |           |  |
           |  |   +-----|NFn                   NFn|<------+   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   |                                       |   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   +---->|NFn                   NFn|-------+   |  |
           |  |      ...|           DUT           |           |  |
           |  +-------->|NF2    (translator)   NF2|-----------+  |
           +----------->|NF1                   NF1|--------------+
                        +-------------------------+
                           Figure 3. Test setup 3

8.1.2. Encapsulation/Translation Transition Technologies

   Similarly, for the encapsulation/translation based technologies a
   multi-flow setup is recommended. For most transition technologies,
   the provider edge device is designed to support more than one
   customer edge network. Hence, the recommended test setup is a n:1
   design, where n is the number of CE DUTs connected to the same PE
   DUT (See Figure 4).

                          +-------------------------+
     +--------------------|NF1                   NF1|<--------------+
     |  +-----------------|NF2      tester       NF2|<-----------+  |
     |  |              ...|                         |            |  |
     |  |   +-------------|NFn                   NFn|<-------+   |  |
     |  |   |             +-------------------------+        |   |  |
     |  |   |                                                |   |  |
     |  |   |    +-----------------+    +---------------+    |   |  |
     |  |   +--->|NFn  DUT CEn  NFn|--->|NFn         NFn| ---+   |  |
     |  |        +-----------------+    |               |        |  |
     |  |     ...                       |               |        |  |
     |  |        +-----------------+    |    DUT PE     |        |  |
     |  +------->|NF2  DUT CE2  NF2|--->|NF2         NF2|--------+  |
     |           +-----------------+    |               |           |
     |           +-----------------+    |               |           |
     +---------->|NF1  DUT CE1  NF1|--->|NF1         NF1|-----------+
                 +-----------------+    +---------------+
                             Figure 4. Test setup 4

   This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the PE
   device. However, for testing the scalability of the DUT CEs
   additional recommendations are needed.
   For encapsulation based transition technologies a m:n setup can be
   created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same CE



Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   device and n the number of CE devices connected to the same PE
   device.
   For the translation based transition technologies the CE devices can
   be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup
   presented in Figure 3.

8.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation

   Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
   parallel network flows.

   Procedure: First the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have
   to be performed for one network flow.

   The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows. The
   performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be
   calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results
   and the n-flow results, using the following formula:


              Xn - X1
       Xpd= ----------- x 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow
                 X1                    Xn - result for n-flows

   Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
   a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
   specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
   SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
   SHOULD also state the applied frame rate.

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.



Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
10. IANA Considerations

   The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6
   benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was
   reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient
   for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies.

11. Conclusions

   The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be used
   for benchmarking the performance of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-
   stack supporting network devices. This document presents
   complementary recommendations dedicated to IPv6 transition
   technologies. Furthermore, the methodology includes a tentative
   approach for benchmarking scalability by quantifying the performance
   degradation associated with network growth.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

   [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
             for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
             IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.

   [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
             Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
             Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6333] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
             "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
             April 2013.

12.2. Informative References

   [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
             Interconnection Devices", [RFC1242], July 1991.

   [RFC2544] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
             Network Interconnect Devices", [RFC2544], March 1999.


Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
   [RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
             Devices", [RFC2647], August 1999.

   [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., Martin, T.,
             "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
             [RFC3511], April 2003.

   [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
             Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
             Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.



13. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Professor Youki Kadobayashi for his
   constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the
   NECOMA project members for their continuous support. Helpful
   comments and suggestions were offered by Scott Bradner, Al Morton,
   Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname
   Nishizuka and Yasuhiro Ohara. A special thank you to the RFC Editor
   Team for their thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions.
   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.




























Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
Appendix A.                 Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates

   This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
   theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over two types of
   commonly used media. The formulas take into account the frame size
   overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process.
   For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20
   bytes of overhead to each frame.

A.1. Ethernet

   Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size
   overhead created by the encapsulation on translation process, the
   maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using
   the following formula:

                Line Rate (bps)
         ------------------------------
         (8bits/byte)*(X+O+20)bytes/frame

   The calculation is based on the formula recommended by RFC5180 in
   Appendix A1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a
   6in4 implementation over 10Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is:

                10,000,000(bps)
         ------------------------------      = 12,019 fps
         (8bits/byte)*(64+20+20)bytes/frame

   The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
   can be found in the following table:

   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
   | (bytes)    | (fps)   | (fps)    | (fps)     | (fps)      |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | 64         | 12,019  | 120,192  | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 |
   | 128        | 7,440   | 74,405   | 744,048   | 7,440,476  |
   | 256        | 4,223   | 42,230   | 422,297   | 4,222,973  |
   | 512        | 2,264   | 22,645   | 226,449   | 2,264,493  |
   | 1024       | 1,175   | 11,748   | 117,481   | 1,174,812  |
   | 1280       | 947     | 9,470    | 94,697    | 946,970    |
   | 1518       | 802     | 8,023    | 80,231    | 802,311    |
   | 1522       | 800     | 8,003    | 80,026    | 800,256    |
   | 2048       | 599     | 5,987    | 59,866    | 598,659    |
   | 4096       | 302     | 3,022    | 30,222    | 302,224    |
   | 8192       | 152     | 1,518    | 15,185    | 151,846    |
   | 9216       | 135     | 1,350    | 13,505    | 135,048    |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+



Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015

A.2. SONET

   Similarly for SONET, if X is the target frame size and O the frame
   size overhead, the recommended formula for calculating the maximum
   theoretical frame rate is:

                Line Rate (bps)
         ------------------------------
         (8bits/byte)*(X+O+1)bytes/frame

   The calculation formula is based on the recommendation of RFC5180 in
   Appendix A2.

   As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a 6in4
   implementation over a 10Mb/s PoS interface with 64 bytes frames is:

                10,000,000(bps)
         ------------------------------      = 14,706 fps
         (8bits/byte)*(64+20+1)bytes/frame

   The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
   can be found in the following table:

   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
   | (bytes)    | (fps)   | (fps)    | (fps)     | (fps)      |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | 47         | 18,382  | 183,824  | 1,838,235 | 18,382,353 |
   | 64         | 14,706  | 147,059  | 1,470,588 | 14,705,882 |
   | 128        | 8,389   | 83,893   | 838,926   | 8,389,262  |
   | 256        | 4,513   | 45,126   | 451,264   | 4,512,635  |
   | 512        | 2,345   | 23,452   | 234,522   | 2,345,216  |
   | 1024       | 1,196   | 11,962   | 119,617   | 1,196,172  |
   | 2048       | 604     | 6,042    | 60,416    | 604,157    |
   | 4096       | 304     | 3,036    | 30,362    | 303,619    |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+














Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     March 2015
Authors' Addresses

   Marius Georgescu
   Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
   Takayama 8916-5
   Nara
   Japan

   Phone: +81 743 72 5216
   Email: liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp









































Georgescu             Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/