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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7747

Benchmarking Working Group                                    R. Papneja
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                                 B. Parise
Expires: July 20, 2015                                     Cisco Systems
                                                                S. Hares
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                  D. Lee
                                                                    IXIA
                                                           I. Varlashkin
                                                                  Google
                                                        January 16, 2015


     Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane
                              Convergence
              draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05.txt

Abstract

   BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the
   default Inter AS routing protocol.  It is of utmost importance to
   ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails,
   the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate
   paths are installed.  This document provides the basic BGP
   Benchmarking Methodology using existing BGP Convergence Terminology,
   RFC 4098.

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 July 20, 2015.

Copyright Notice

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



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 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.  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 July 20, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Benchmarking Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Purpose of BGP FIB (Data Plane) Convergence  . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Control Plane Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4.  Benchmarking Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Existing Definitions and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Test Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  General Reference Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Number of Peers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Number of Routes per Peer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Policy Processing/Reconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..)  . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Interface Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.6.  Measurement Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.7.  Measurement Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.8.  Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.9.  Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.10. High Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1.  Basic Convergence Tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.1.  RIB-IN Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.2.  RIB-OUT Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.1.3.  eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.1.4.  iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.1.5.  eBGP Multihop Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.2.  BGP Failure/Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       5.2.1.  Physical Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       5.2.2.  Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End . . . . . 20
       5.2.3.  ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.3.  BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on
           Emulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.4.  BGP Hard Reset Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.4.1.  BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT . . . . . . 21
     5.5.  BGP Soft Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.6.  BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time  . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.7.  BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time . . . . . . . . 26
     5.8.  BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time  . . . . . . . . . . 27
   6.  Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


1.  Introduction

   This document defines the methodology for benchmarking data plane FIB
   convergence performance of BGP in routers and switches using
   topologies of 3 or 4 nodes.  The methodology proposed in this
   document applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 and if a particular test is
   unique to one version, it is marked accordingly.  For IPv6
   benchmarking the device under test will require the support of Multi-
   Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760, RFC2545].  Similarly both iBGP & eBGP
   are covered in the tests as applicable.

   The scope of this document is to provide methodology for BGP protocol
   FIB convergence measurements with BGP functionality limited to IPv4 &
   IPv6 as defined in RFC 4271 and Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760,
   RFC2545].  Other BGP extensions to support layer-2, layer-3 virtual
   private networks (VPN) are outside the scope of this document.
   Interaction with IGPs (IGP interworking) is outside the scope of this
   document.

1.1.  Benchmarking Definitions

   The terminology used in this document is defined in [RFC4098].  One
   additional term is defined in this draft: FIB (Data plane) BGP
   Convergence.

   FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB
   changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed
   route.  RFC 4098 defines the terms BGP device, FIB and the forwarded
   traffic.  Data plane convergence is different than control plane
   convergence within a node.

   This document defines methodology to test

   - Data plane convergence on a single BGP device that supports the BGP
   functionality with scope as outlined above

   - using test topology of 3 or 4 nodes which are sufficient to
   recreate the Convergence events used in the various tests of this
   draft

1.2.  Purpose of BGP FIB (Data Plane) Convergence

   In the current Internet architecture the Inter-Autonomous System
   (inter-AS) transit is primarily available through BGP.  To maintain
   reliable connectivity within intra-domains or across inter-domains,
   fast recovery from failures remains most critical.  To ensure minimal
   traffic losses, many service providers are requiring BGP
   implementations to converge the entire Internet routing table within



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   sub-seconds at FIB level.

   Furthermore, to compare these numbers amongst various devices,
   service providers are also looking at ways to standardize the
   convergence measurement methods.  This document offers test methods
   for simple topologies.  These simple tests will provide a quick high-
   level check of the BGP data plane convergence across multiple
   implementations from different vendors.

1.3.  Control Plane Convergence

   The convergence of BGP occurs at two levels: RIB and FIB convergence.
   RFC 4098 defines terms for BGP control plane convergence.
   Methodologies which test control plane convergence are out of scope
   for this draft.

1.4.  Benchmarking Testing

   In order to ensure that the results obtained in tests are repeatable,
   careful setup of initial conditions and exact steps are required.

   This document proposes these initial conditions, test steps, and
   result checking.  To ensure uniformity of the results all optional
   parameters SHOULD be disabled and all settings SHOULD be changed to
   default, these may include BGP timers as well.


2.  Existing Definitions and Requirements

   RFC 1242, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
   [RFC1242] and RFC 2285, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
   Devices" [RFC2285] SHOULD be reviewed in conjunction with this
   document.  WLAN-specific terms and definitions are also provided in
   Clauses 3 and 4 of the IEEE 802.11 standard [802.11].  Commonly used
   terms may also be found in RFC 1983 [RFC1983].

   For the sake of clarity and continuity, this document adopts the
   general template for benchmarking terminology set out in Section 2 of
   RFC 1242.  Definitions are organized in alphabetical order, and
   grouped into sections for ease of reference.  The following terms are
   assumed to be taken as defined in RFC 1242 [RFC1242]: Throughput,
   Latency, Constant Load, Frame Loss Rate, and Overhead Behavior.  In
   addition, the following terms are taken as defined in [RFC2285]:
   Forwarding Rates, Maximum Forwarding Rate, Loads, Device Under Test
   (DUT), and System Under Test (SUT).

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



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


3.  Test Topologies

   This section describes the test setups for use in BGP benchmarking
   tests measuring convergence of the FIB (data plane) after the BGP
   updates has been received.

   These test setups have 3 or 4 nodes with the following configuration:

   1.  Basic Test Setup

   2.  Three node setup for iBGP or eBGP convergence

   3.  Setup for eBGP multihop test scenario

   4.  Four node setup for iBGP or eBGP convergence

   Individual tests refer to these topologies.

   Figures 1-4 use the following conventions

   o  AS-X: Autonomous System X

   o  Loopback Int: Loopback interface on the BGP enabled device

   o  HLP,HLP1,HLP2: Helper routers running the same version of BGP as
      DUT

   o  Enable NTP or use any external clock source to synchronize to the
      nodes

3.1.  General Reference Topologies

   Emulator acts as 1 or more BGP peers for different testcases.















Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


           +----------+                             +------------+
           |          |   traffic interfaces        |            |
           |          |-----------------------1---- | tx         |
           |          |-----------------------2---- | tr1        |
           |          |-----------------------3-----| tr2        |
           |    DUT   |                             | Emulator   |
           |          |    routing interfaces       |            |
           |      Dp1 |---------------------------  |Emp1        |
           |          |      BGP Peering            |            |
           |      Dp2 |---------------------------- |Emp2        |
           |          |      BGP Peering            |            |
           +----------+                             +------------+




                         Figure 1 Basic Test Setup



           +------------+        +-----------+           +-----------+
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |   HLP      |        |  DUT      |           | Emulator  |
           |  (AS-X)    |--------| (AS-Y)    |-----------|  (AS-Z)   |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           +------------+        +-----------+           +-----------+
                   |                                            |
                   |                                            |
                   +--------------------------------------------+




          Figure 2 Three Node Setup for eBGP and iBGP Convergence














Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


                +----------------------------------------------+
                |                                              |
                |                                              |
           +------------+        +-----------+           +-----------+
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |   HLP      |        |  DUT      |           | Emulator  |
           |  (AS-X)    |--------| (AS-Y)    |-----------|  (AS-Z)   |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           |            |        |           |           |           |
           +------------+        +-----------+           +-----------+
                |Loopback-Int         |Loopback-Int
                |                     |
                +                     +



            Figure 3  BGP Convergence for eBGP Multihop Scenario



           +---------+     +--------+     +--------+     +---------+
           |         |     |        |     |        |     |         |
           |         |     |        |     |        |     |         |
           |  HLP1   |     |  DUT   |     |  HLP2  |     |Emulator |
           | (AS-X)  |-----| (AS-X) |-----| (AS-Y) |-----| (AS-Z)  |
           |         |     |        |     |        |     |         |
           |         |     |        |     |        |     |         |
           |         |     |        |     |        |     |         |
           +---------+     +--------+     +--------+     +---------+
                |                                             |
                |                                             |
                +---------------------------------------------+





          Figure 4  Four Node Setup for EBGP and IBGP Convergence


4.  Test Considerations

   The test cases for measuring convergence for iBGP and eBGP are
   different.  Both iBGP and eBGP use different mechanisms to advertise,
   install and learn the routes.  Typically, an iBGP route on the DUT is
   installed and exported when the next-hop is valid.  For eBGP the



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   route is installed on the DUT with the remote interface address as
   the next-hop, with the exception of the multihop test case (as
   specified in the test).

4.1.  Number of Peers

   Number of Peers is defined as the number of BGP neighbors or sessions
   the DUT has at the beginning of the test.  The peers are established
   before the tests begin.  The relationship could be either, iBGP or
   eBGP peering depending upon the test case requirement.

   The DUT establishes one or more BGP sessions with one more emulated
   routers or helper nodes.  Additional peers can be added based on the
   testing requirements.  The number of peers enabled during the testing
   should be well documented in the report matrix.

4.2.  Number of Routes per Peer

   Number of Routes per Peer is defined as the number of routes
   advertised or learnt by the DUT per session or through a neighbor
   relationship with an emulator or helper node.  The tester, emulating
   as neighbor MUST advertise at least one route per peer.

   Each test run must identify the route stream in terms of route
   packing, route mixture, and number of routes.  This route stream must
   be well documented in the reporting stream.  RFC 4098 defines these
   terms.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the user consider advertising the entire
   current Internet routing table per peering session using an Internet
   route mixture with unique or non-unique routes.  If multiple peers
   are used, it is important to precisely document the timing sequence
   between the peer sending routes (as defined in RFC 4098).

4.3.  Policy Processing/Reconfiguration

   The DUT MUST run one baseline test where policy is Minimal policy as
   defined in RFC 4098.  Additional runs may be done with policy set-up
   before the tests begin.  Exact policy settings MUST be documented as
   part of the test.

4.4.  Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..)

   There are configured parameters and timers that may impact the
   measured BGP convergence times.

   The benchmark metrics MAY be measured at any fixed values for these
   configured parameters.



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   It is RECOMMENDED these configure parameters have the following
   settings: a) default values specified by the respective RFC b)
   platform-specific default parameters and c) values as expected in the
   operational network.  All optional BGP settings MUST be kept
   consistent across iterations of any specific tests

   Examples of the configured parameters that may impact measured BGP
   convergence time include, but are not limited to:



         1.  Interface failure detection timer

         2.  BGP Keepalive timer

         3.  BGP Holdtime

         4.  BGP update delay timer

         5.  ConnectRetry timer

         6.  TCP Segment Size

         7.  Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI)

         8.  MinASOriginationInterval (MAOI)

         9.  Route Flap Dampening parameters

         10.  TCP MD5

         11.  Maximum TCP Window Size

         12.  MTU

   The basic-test settings for the parameters should be:



         1.  Interface failure detection timer (0 ms)

         2.  BGP Keepalive timer (1 min)

         3.  BGP Holdtime (3 min)

         4.  BGP update delay timer (0 s)





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


         5.  ConnectRetry timer (1 s)

         6.  TCP Segment Size (4096)

         7.  Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI) (0 s)

         8.  MinASOriginationInterval (MAOI)(0 s)

         9.  Route Flap Dampening parameters (off)

         10.  TCP MD5 (off)

4.5.  Interface Types

   The type of media dictate which test cases may be executed, each
   interface type has unique mechanism for detecting link failures and
   the speed at which that mechanism operates will influence the
   measurement results.  All interfaces MUST be of the same media and
   throughput for all iterations of each test case.

4.6.  Measurement Accuracy

   Since observed packet loss is used to measure the route convergence
   time, the time between two successive packets offered to each
   individual route is the highest possible accuracy of any packet-loss
   based measurement.  When packet jitter is much less than the
   convergence time, it is a negligible source of error and hence it
   will be treated as within tolerance.

   Other options to measure convergence are the Time-Based Loss Method
   (TBLM) and Timestamp Based Method(TBM)[MPLSProt].

   An exterior measurement on the input media (such as Ethernet) is
   defined by this specification.

4.7.  Measurement Statistics

   The benchmark measurements may vary for each trial, due to the
   statistical nature of timer expirations, CPU scheduling, etc.  It is
   recommended to repeat the test multiple times.  Evaluation of the
   test data must be done with an understanding of generally accepted
   testing practices regarding repeatability, variance and statistical
   significance of a small number of trials.

   For any repeated tests that are averaged to remove variance, all
   parameters MUST remain the same.





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


4.8.  Authentication

   Authentication in BGP is done using the TCP MD5 Signature Option
   [RFC5925].  The processing of the MD5 hash, particularly in devices
   with a large number of BGP peers and a large amount of update
   traffic, can have an impact on the control plane of the device.  If
   authentication is enabled, it MUST be documented correctly in the
   reporting format.

   Also it is recommended that trials MUST be with the same SIDR
   features (RFC7115 & BGPSec).  The best convergence tests would be
   with No SIDR features, and then with the same SIDR features.

4.9.  Convergence Events

   Convergence events or triggers are defined as abnormal occurrences in
   the network, which initiate route flapping in the network, and hence
   forces the re-convergence of a steady state network.  In a real
   network, a series of convergence events may cause convergence latency
   operators desire to test.

   These convergence events must be defined in terms of the sequences
   defined in RFC 4098.  This basic document begins all tests with a
   router initial set-up.  Additional documents will define BGP data
   plane convergence based on peer initialization.

   The convergence events may or may not be tied to the actual failure A
   Soft Reset (RFC 4098) does not clear the RIB or FIB tables.  A Hard
   reset clears the BGP peer sessions, the RIB tables, and FIB tables.

4.10.  High Availability

   Due to the different Non-Stop-Routing (sometimes referred to High-
   Availability) solutions available from different vendors, it is
   RECOMMENDED that any redundancy available in the routing processors
   should be disabled during the convergence measurements.  For cases
   where the redundancy cannot be disabled, the results are no longer
   comparable and the level of impacts on the measurements is out of
   scope of this document.


5.  Test Cases

   All tests defined under this section assume the following:

   a.  BGP peers are in established state





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   b.  BGP state should be cleared from established state to idle prior
       to each test.  This is recommended to ensure that all tests start
       with the BGP peers being forced back to idle state and databases
       flushed.

   c.  Furthermore the traffic generation and routing should be verified
       in the topology to ensure there is no packet loss observed on any
       advertised routes

   d.  The arrival timestamp of advertised routes can be measured by
       installing an inline monitoring device between the emulator and
       DUT, or by the span port of DUT connected with an external
       analyzer.  The time base of such inline monitor or external
       analyzer needs to be synchronized with the protocol and traffic
       emulator.  Some modern emulator may have the capability to
       capture and timestamp every NLRI packets leaving and arriving at
       the emulator ports.  The timestamps of these NLRI packets will be
       almost identical to the arrival time at DUT if the cable distance
       between the emulator and DUT is relatively short.

5.1.  Basic Convergence Tests

   These test cases measure characteristics of a BGP implementation in
   non-failure scenarios like:



      1.  RIB-IN Convergence

      2.  RIB-OUT Convergence

      3.  eBGP Convergence

      4.  iBGP Convergence



5.1.1.  RIB-IN Convergence

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken to receive and
      install a route in RIB using BGP.

   Reference Test Setup:






Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1

   Procedure:



      A.  All variables affecting Convergence should be set to a basic
          test state (as defined in section 4-4).

      B.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and one peer of Emulator,
          Emp1.

      C.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      D.  Start the traffic from the Emulator tx towards the DUT
          targeted at a routes specified in route mixture (ex. routeA)
          Initially no traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress
          interface as the routeA is not installed in the forwarding
          database of the DUT.

      E.  Advertise routeA from the peer(Emp1) to the DUT and record the
          time.

             This is Tup(EMp1,Rt-A) also named 'XMT-Rt-time(Rt-A)'.

      F.  Record the time when the routeA from Emp1 is received at the
          DUT.

             This Tup(DUT,Rt-A) also named 'RCV-Rt-time(Rt-A)'.

      G.  Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
          received by Emulator on appropriate traffic egress interface.

             This is TR(TDr,Rt-A).  This is also named DUT-XMT-Data-
             Time(Rt-A).

      H.  The difference between the Tup(DUT,RT-A) and traffic received
          time (TR (TDr, Rt-A) is the FIB Convergence Time for routeA in
          the route mixture.  A full convergence for the route update is
          the measurement between the 1st route (Rt-A) and the last
          route (Rt-last)

             Route update convergence is

             TR(TDr, Rt-last)- Tup(DUT, Rt-A) or




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


             (DUT-XMT-Data-Time - RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)

   Note: It is recommended that a single test with the same route
   mixture be repeated several times.  A report should provide the
   Standard Deviation of all tests and the Average.

   Running tests with a varying number of routes and route mixtures is
   important to get a full characterization of a single peer.

5.1.2.  RIB-OUT Convergence

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
      to receive, install and advertise a route using BGP.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.

   Procedure:



      A.  The Helper node (HLP) MUST run same version of BGP as DUT.

      B.  All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
          reference clock.

      C.  All configuration variables for HLP, DUT and Emulator SHOULD
          be set to the same values.  These values MAY be basic-test or
          a unique set completely described in the test set-up.

      D.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.

      E.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.

      F.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      G.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node
          targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially no
          traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress interface as the
          routeA is not installed in the forwarding database of the DUT.

      H.  Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT and note the
          time.



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


             This is Tup(EMx, Rt-A), also named EM-XMT-Data-Time(Rt-A)

      I.  Record when routeA is received by DUT.

             This is Tup(DUTr, Rt-A), also named DUT-RCV-Rt-Time(Rt-A)

      J.  Record the time when the routeA is forwarded by DUT towards
          the Helper node.

             This is Tup(DUTx, Rt-A), also named DUT-XMT-Rt-Time(Rt-A)

      K.  Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
          received on the Route Egress Interface.  This is TR(EMr,
          Rt-A), also named DUT-XMT-Data Time(Rt-A).

             FIB convergence = (DUT-XMT-Data-Time
             -DUT-RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)

             RIB convergence = (DUT-XMT-Rt-Time - DUT-RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)



             Convergence for a route stream is characterized by

             a) Individual route convergence for FIB, RIB

             b) All route convergence of

             FIB-convergence = DUT-XMT-Data-Time(last) - DUT-RCV-Rt-
             Time(first)

             RIB-convergence = DUT-XMT-Rt-Time(last) - DUT-RCV-Rt-
             Time(first)

5.1.3.  eBGP Convergence

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
      to receive, install and advertise a route in an eBGP Scenario.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2 and the scenarios
      described in RIB-IN and RIB-OUT are applicable to this test case.






Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


5.1.4.  iBGP Convergence

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
      to receive, install and advertise a route in an iBGP Scenario.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2 and the scenarios
      described in RIB-IN and RIB-OUT are applicable to this test case.

5.1.5.  eBGP Multihop Convergence

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
      to receive, install and advertise a route in an eBGP Multihop
      Scenario.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 3.  DUT is used along
      with a helper node.

   Procedure:



      A.  The Helper Node (HLP) MUST run the same version of BGP as DUT.

      B.  All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
          reference clock.

      C.  All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
          policies, timers SHOULD be set to basic-settings

      D.  All 3 devices, DUT, Emulator and Helper Node are configured
          with different Autonomous Systems.

      E.  Loopback Interfaces are configured on DUT and Helper Node and
          connectivity is established between them using any config
          options available on the DUT.

      F.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.

      G.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      H.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test

      I.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
          at a specific route (e.g. routeA).

      J.  Initially no traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress
          interface as the routeA is not installed in the forwarding
          database of the DUT.

      K.  Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT and note the
          time (Tup(EMx,RouteA) also named Route-Tx-time(Rt-A).

      L.  Record the time when the route is received by the DUT.  This
          is Tup(EMr,DUT) named Route-Rcv-time(Rt-A).

      M.  Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
          received from Egress Interface of DUT on emulator.  This is
          Tup(EMd,DUT) named Data-Rcv-time(Rt-A)

      N.  Record the time when the routeA is forwarded by DUT towards
          the Helper node.  This is Tup(EMf,DUT) also named Route-Fwd-
          time(Rt-A)

             FIB Convergence = (Data-Rcv-time - Route-Rcv-time)(Rt-A)

             RIB Convergence = (Route-Fwd-time - Route-Rcv-time)(Rt-A)

   Note: It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying number
   of routes and route mixtures.  With each set route mixture, the test
   should be repeated multiple times.  The results should record
   average, mean, Standard Deviation

5.2.  BGP Failure/Convergence Events

5.2.1.  Physical Link Failure on DUT End

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
      failure event at DUT's Local Interface.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.  Shutdown event is
      defined as an administrative shutdown event on the DUT.




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   Procedure:



      A.  All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
          policies, timers should be set to basic-test policy.

      B.  Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
          peer interface and the other using a second peer interface.

      C.  Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
          (Emp1) Interface to be the preferred next hop.

      D.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      E.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
          at a specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially traffic would be
          observed on the best egress route (Emp1) instead of Emp2.

      F.  Trigger the shutdown event of Best Egress Interface on DUT
          (Dp1).  This time is called Shutdown time

      G.  Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
          traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface (Dp2)

             Time = Data-detect(Emp2) - Shutdown time

      H.  Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain.
          Restart the data flow.

      I.  Bring up the link on DUT Best Egress Interface.

      J.  Measure the convergence time taken for the traffic to be
          rerouted from (Dp2) to Best Interface (Dp1)

             Time = Data-detect(Emp1) - Bring Up time

      K.  It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying
          number of routes and route mixtures or with number of routes &
          route mixtures closer to what is deployed in operational
          networks.








Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


5.2.2.  Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
      failure event at Tester's Local Interface.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.  Shutdown event is
      defined as shutdown of the local interface of Tester via logical
      shutdown event.  The procedure used in 5.2.1 is used for the
      termination.

5.2.3.  ECMP Link Failure on DUT End

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
      failure event at ECMP Member.  The FIB configuration and BGP is
      set to allow two ECMP routes to be installed.  However, policy
      directs the routes to be sent only over one of the paths

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1 and the procedure
      uses 5.2.1.

5.3.  BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on Emulator

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time due to BGP Adjacency
      Failure on Emulator.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.

   Procedure:



      A.  All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
          policies, timers should be basic-policy set.

      B.  Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
          Best Egress Interface and the other using the Next-Best Egress



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


          Interface.

      C.  Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
          make Best Egress Interface to be the preferred next hop

      D.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      E.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
          at a specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially traffic would be
          observed on the Best Egress interface.

      F.  Remove BGP adjacency via a software adjacency down on the
          Emulator on the Best Egress Interface.  This time is called
          BGPadj-down-time also termed BGPpeer-down

      G.  Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
          traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface.  This
          time is Tr-rr2 also called TR2-traffic-on

             Convergence = TR2-traffic-on - BGPpeer-down

      H.  Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
          Restart the data flow.

      I.  Bring up BGP adjacency on the Emulator over the Best Egress
          Interface.  This time is BGP-adj-up also called BGPpeer-up

      J.  Measure the convergence time taken for the traffic to be
          rerouted to Best Interface.  This time is Tr-rr1 also called
          TR1-traffic-on

             Convergence = TR1-traffic-on - BGPpeer-up

5.4.  BGP Hard Reset Test Cases

5.4.1.  BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time due to Hard Reset on
      the DUT.

   Reference Test Setup:






Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.

   Procedure:



      A.  The requirement for this test case is that the Hard Reset
          Event should be non-recovering and should affect only the
          adjacency between DUT and Emulator on the Best Egress
          Interface.

      B.  All variables affecting SHOULD be set to basic-test values.

      C.  Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
          Best Egress Interface and the other using the Next-Best Egress
          Interface.

      D.  Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
          make Best Egress Interface to be the preferred next hop.

      E.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      F.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
          at a specific route (e.g routeA).  Initially traffic would be
          observed on the Best Egress interface.

      G.  Trigger the Hard Reset event of Best Egress Interface on DUT.
          This time is called time-reset

      H.  This event is detected and traffic is forwarded to the Next-
          Best Egress Interface.  This tim e called time-traffic flow.

      I.  Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
          traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface.

             Time of convergence = time-traffic flow - time-reset

      J.  Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
          Restart.

      K.  It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying
          number of routes and route mixtures or with number of routes &
          route mixtures closer to what is deployed in operational
          networks.





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      L.  When varying number of routes are used, convergence Time is
          measured using the Loss Derived method [IGPData].

      M.  Convergence Time in this scenario is influenced by Failure
          detection time on Tester, BGP Keep Alive Time and routing,
          forwarding table update time.

5.5.  BGP Soft Reset

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
      implementation to service a BGP Route Refresh message and
      advertise a route.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.

   Procedure:



      A.  The BGP implementation on DUT & Helper Node needs to support
          BGP Route Refresh Capability [RFC2918].

      B.  All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
          reference clock.

      C.  All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
          policies, timers should be set to basic-test defaults.

      D.  DUT and Helper Node are configured in the same Autonomous
          System whereas Emulator is configured under a different
          Autonomous System.

      E.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.

      F.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.

      G.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      H.  Configure a policy under BGP on Helper Node to deny routes
          received from DUT.





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      I.  Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT.

      J.  The DUT will try to advertise the route to Helper Node will be
          denied.

      K.  Wait for 3 KeepAlives.

      L.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node
          targeted at a specific route say routeA.  Initially no traffic
          would be observed on the Egress interface, as routeA is not
          present.

      M.  Remove the policy on Helper Node and issue a Route Refresh
          request towards DUT.  Note the timestamp of this event.  This
          is the RefreshTime.

      N.  Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
          received on the Egress Interface.  This is RecTime.

      O.  The following equation represents the Route Refresh
          Convergence Time per route.

             Route Refresh Convergence Time = (RecTime - RefreshTime)

5.6.  BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
      implementation to service a BGP Withdraw message and advertise the
      withdraw.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.

   Procedure:



      A.  This test consists of 2 steps to determine the Total Withdraw
          Processing Time.

      B.  Step 1:







Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


          (1)   All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
                reference clock.

          (2)   All variables should be set to basic-test parameters.

          (3)   DUT and Helper Node are configured in the same
                Autonomous System whereas Emulator is configured under a
                different Autonomous System.

          (4)   Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.

          (5)   To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives
                from the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding
                with the rest of the test.

          (6)   Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT
                targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially
                no traffic would be observed on the Egress interface as
                the routeA is not present on DUT.

          (7)   Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT.

          (8)   The traffic targeted towards routeA is received on the
                Egress Interface.

          (9)   Now the Tester sends request to withdraw routeA to DUT,
                TRx(Awith) also called WdrawTime1(Rt-A).

          (10)  Record the time when no traffic is observed as
                determined by the Emulator.  This is the
                RouteRemoveTime1(Rt-A).

          (11)  The difference between the RouteRemoveTime1 and
                WdrawTime1 is the WdrawConvTime1

                   WdrawConvTime1(Rt-A) = RouteRemoveTime1(Rt-A) -
                   WdrawTime1(Rt-A)

      C.  Step 2:

          (1)  Continuing from Step 1, re-advertise routeA back to DUT
               from Tester.

          (2)  The DUT will try to advertise the routeA to Helper Node
               (This assumes there exists a session between DUT and
               helper node).





Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


          (3)  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper
               Node targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA).  Traffic
               would be observed on the Egress interface after routeA is
               received by the Helper Node

                  WATime=time traffic first flows

          (4)  Now the Tester sends a request to withdraw routeA to DUT.
               This is the WdrawTime2(Rt-A)

                  WAWtime-TRx(Rt-A) = WdrawTime2(Rt-A)

          (5)  DUT processes the withdraw and sends it to Helper Node.

          (6)  Record the time when no traffic is observed as determined
               by the Emulator.  This is

                  TR-WAW(DUT,RouteA) = RouteRemoveTime2(Rt-A)

          (7)  Total withdraw processing time is

                  TotalWdrawTime(Rt-A) = ((RouteRemoveTime2(Rt-A) -
                  WdrawTime2(Rt-A)) - WdrawConvTime1(Rt-A))

5.7.  BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time

   Objective:

      This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
      to service a BGP Path Attribute Change.

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.

   Procedure:



      A.  This test only applies to Well-Known Mandatory Attributes like
          Origin, AS Path, Next Hop.

      B.  In each iteration of test only one of these mandatory
          attributes need to be varied whereas the others remain the
          same.

      C.  All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
          reference clock.



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      D.  All variables should be set to basic-test parameters.

      E.  Advertise the route, routeA over the Best Egress Interface
          only, making it the preferred named Tbest.

      F.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      G.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
          at the specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially traffic would
          be observed on the Best Egress interface.

      H.  Now advertise the same route routeA on the Next-Best Egress
          Interface but by varying one of the well-known mandatory
          attributes to have a preferred value over that interface.  We
          call this Tbetter.  The other values need to be same as what
          was advertised on the Best-Egress adjacency

             TRx(Path-Change(Rt-A)) = Path Change Event Time(Rt-A)

      I.  Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
          traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface

             DUT(Path-Change, Rt-A) = Path-switch time(Rt-A)

             Convergence = Path-switch time(Rt-A) - Path Change Event
             Time(Rt-A)

      J.  Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
          Restart.

      K.  Repeat the test for various attributes.

5.8.  BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time

   Objective:

      This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
      implementation during a Graceful Restart Event as detailed in the
      Terminology document [RFC4098].

   Reference Test Setup:

      This test uses the setup as shown in figure 4.

   Procedure:




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015




      A.  It measures the time taken by an implementation to service a
          BGP Graceful Restart Event and advertise a route.

      B.  The Helper Nodes are the same model as DUT and run the same
          BGP implementation as DUT.

      C.  The BGP implementation on DUT & Helper Node needs to support
          BGP Graceful Restart Mechanism [RFC4724].

      D.  All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
          reference clock.

      E.  All variables are set to basic-test values.

      F.  DUT and Helper Node-1(HLP1) are configured in the same
          Autonomous System whereas Emulator and Helper Node-2(HLP2) are
          configured under different Autonomous Systems.

      G.  Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Nodes.

      H.  Establish BGP adjacency between Helper Node-2 and Emulator.

      I.  To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
          the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
          rest of the test.

      J.  Configure a policy under BGP on Helper Node-1 to deny routes
          received from DUT.

      K.  Advertise routeA from the Emulator to Helper Node-2.

      L.  Helper Node-2 advertises the route to DUT and DUT will try to
          advertise the route to Helper Node-1 which will be denied.

      M.  Wait for 3 KeepAlives.

      N.  Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node-1
          targeted at the specific route (e.g. routeA).  Initially no
          traffic would be observed on the Egress interface as the
          routeA is not present.

      O.  Perform a Graceful Restart Trigger Event on DUT and note the
          time.  This is the GREventTime.

      P.  Remove the policy on Helper Node-1.




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


      Q.  Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
          received on the Egress Interface

             TRr(DUT, routeA).  This is also called RecTime(Rt-A)

      R.  The following equation represents the Graceful Restart
          Convergence Time

             Graceful Restart Convergence Time(Rt-A) = ((RecTime(Rt-A) -
             GREventTime) - RIB-IN)

      S.  It is assumed in this test case that after a Switchover is
          triggered on the DUT, it will not have any cycles to process
          BGP Refresh messages.  The reason for this assumption is that
          there is a narrow window of time where after switchover when
          we remove the policy from Helper Node-1, implementations might
          generate Route-Refresh automatically and this request might be
          serviced before the DUT actually switches over and
          reestablishes BGP adjacencies with the peers.


6.  Reporting Format

   For each test case, it is recommended that the reporting tables below
   are completed and all time values SHOULD be reported with resolution
   as specified in [RFC4098].



       Parameter                        Units

       Test case                        Test case number

       Test topology                    1,2,3 or 4

       Parallel links                   Number of parallel links

       Interface type                   GigE, POS, ATM, other

       Convergence Event                Hard reset, Soft reset, link
                                        failure, or other defined

       eBGP sessions                    Number of eBGP sessions

       iBGP sessions                    Number of iBGP sessions

       eBGP neighbor                    Number of eBGP neighbors




Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


       iBGP neighbor                    Number of iBGP neighbors

       Routes per peer                  Number of routes

       Total unique routes              Number of routes

       Total non-unique routes          Number of routes

       IGP configured                   ISIS, OSPF, static, or other

       Route Mixture                    Description of Route mixture

       Route Packing                    Number of routes in an update

       Policy configured                Yes, No

       SIDR Origin Authentication       Yes, No
        [RFC7115]

       bgp-sec [BGPSec]                 Yes, No

       Packet size offered to the DUT   Bytes

       Offered load                     Packets per second

       Packet sampling interval on      Seconds
        tester

       Forwarding delay threshold       Seconds

       Timer Values configured on DUT
         Interface failure indication   Seconds
          delay
         Hold time                      Seconds
         MinRouteAdvertisementInterval  Seconds
          (MRAI)
         MinASOriginationInterval       Seconds
          (MAOI)
         Keepalive Time                 Seconds
         ConnectRetry                   Seconds

       TCP Parameters for DUT and tester
         MSS                            Bytes
         Slow start threshold           Bytes
         Maximum window size            Bytes


   Test Details:



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   a.  If the Offered Load matches a subset of routes, describe how this
       subset is selected.

   b.  Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause
       instantaneous traffic loss or not.

   c.  If there is any policy configured, describe the configured
       policy.

   Complete the table below for the initial Convergence Event and the
   reversion Convergence Event


           Parameter                        Unit

           Convergence Event                Initial or reversion

           Traffic Forwarding Metrics
             Total number of packets        Number of packets
              offered to DUT
             Total number of packets        Number of packets
              forwarded by DUT
             Connectivity Packet Loss       Number of packets
             Convergence Packet Loss        Number of packets
             Out-of-order packets           Number of packets
             Duplicate packets              Number of packets

           Convergence Benchmarks

             Rate-derived Method[RFC
              6412]:
              First route convergence       Seconds
               time
              Full convergence time         Seconds

             Loss-derived Method [RFC
              6412]:
              Loss-derived convergence      Seconds
               time

             Route-Specific Loss-Derived
              Method:
              Minimum R-S convergence       Seconds
               time
              Maximum R-S convergence       Seconds
               time
              Median R-S convergence        Seconds
               time



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


              Average R-S convergence       Seconds
               time

           Loss of Connectivity Benchmarks

             Loss-derived Method:
              Loss-derived loss of          Seconds
               connectivity period

             Route-Specific loss-derived
              Method:
              Minimum LoC period [n]        Array of seconds
              Minimum Route LoC period      Seconds
              Maximum Route LoC period      Seconds
              Median Route LoC period       Seconds
              Average Route LoC period      Seconds



7.  IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any new allocations by IANA.


8.  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.


9.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Anil Tandon, Arvind Pandey, Mohan Nanduri, Jay



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


   Karthik, Eric Brendel for their input and discussions on various
   sections in the document.  We also like to acknowledge Will Liu,
   Semion Lisyansky, Faisal Shah for their review and feedback to the
   document.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
              Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification",
              draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-09 (work in progress),
              July 2014.

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

   [RFC2918]  Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
              September 2000.

   [RFC4098]  Berkowitz, H., Davies, E., Hares, S., Krishnaswamy, P.,
              and M. Lepp, "Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device
              Convergence in the Control Plane", RFC 4098, June 2005.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC6412]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
              for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
              Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.

   [RFC7115]  Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the
              Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185,
              RFC 7115, January 2014.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
              interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [RFC1983]  Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983,
              August 1996.

   [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
              Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

   [RFC2545]  Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol



Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft         BGP Convergence Methodology          January 2015


              Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
              March 1999.

   [RFC4724]  Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
              Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
              January 2007.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              January 2007.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Rajiv Papneja
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com


   Bhavani Parise
   Cisco Systems

   Email: bhavani@cisco.com


   Susan Hares
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: shares@ndzh.com


   Dean Lee
   IXIA

   Email: dlee@ixiacom.com


   Ilya Varlashkin
   Google

   Email: ilya@nobulus.com






Papneja, et al.           Expires July 20, 2015                [Page 34]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/