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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 6413

   Network Working Group
   INTERNET-DRAFT
   Expires in: July 2004
                                                Scott Poretsky
                                                Quarry Technologies

                                                Brent Imhoff
                                                Wiltel Communications

                                                January 2004

                        Benchmarking Methodology for
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-02.txt>


   Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force  (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

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

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

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

   ABSTRACT
   This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
   Convergence as described in Applicability document [1] and
   Terminology document [2].  The methodology and terminology are
   to be used for benchmarking route convergence and can be applied
   to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4].  The terms
   used in the procedures provided within this document are
   defined in [2].

   Table of Contents
     1. Introduction ...............................................2
     2. Existing definitions .......................................2
     3. Test Setup..................................................3
     3.1 Test Topologies............................................3
     3.2 Test Considerations........................................4
     3.2.1 IGP Selection............................................4

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Benchmarking Methodology for  January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

     3.2.2 BGP Configuration........................................4
     3.2.3 IGP Route Scaling........................................5
     3.2.4 Timers...................................................5
     3.2.5 Convergence Time Metrics.................................5
     3.2.6 Offered Load.............................................5
     3.2.7 Interface Types..........................................5
     3.3 Reporting Format...........................................6
     4. Test Cases..................................................6
     4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure............................6
     4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure...............6
     4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure............7
     4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure..............7
     4.2 Convergence Due to PPP Session Failure.....................8
     4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure...................9
     4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................9
     4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................10
     4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........10
     4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure.........11
     5. Security Considerations.....................................12
     6. References..................................................12
     7. Author's Address............................................12
     8. Full Copyright Statement....................................13

   1. Introduction
   This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
   Convergence.  The applicability of this testing is described in
   [1] and the new terminology that it introduces is defined in [2].
   Service Providers use IGP Convergence time as a key metric of
   router design and architecture.  Customers of Service Providers
   observe convergence time by packet loss, so IGP Route Convergence
   is considered a Direct Measure of Quality (DMOQ).  The test cases
   in this document are black-box tests that emulate the network
   events that cause route convergence, as described in [1].  The
   black-box test designs benchmark the data plane accounting for
   all of the factors contributing to convergence time, as discussed
   in [1].  The methodology (and terminology) for benchmarking route
   convergence can be applied to any link-state  IGP such as ISIS [3]
   and OSPF [4].

   2.  Existing definitions

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

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.




Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Benchmarking Methodology for  January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.  Test Setup
   3.1 Test Topologies

   Figure 1 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence due
   to local Convergence Events such as SONET Link Failure, PPP Session
   Failure, IGP  Adjacency Failure, Route Withdrawal, and route cost
   change.  These test cases discussed in section 4 provide route
   convergence times that account for the Event Detection time, SPF
   Processing time, and FIB Update time.  These times are measured
   by observing packet loss in the data plane.

        ---------       Ingress Interface       ---------
        |       |<------------------------------|       |
        |       |                               |       |
        |       | Preferred Egress Interface    |       |
        |  DUT  |------------------------------>|Tester |
        |       |                               |       |
        |       |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|       |
        |       | Next-Best Egress Interface    |       |
        ---------                               ---------

        Figure 1.  IGP Route Convergence Test Topology for Local Changes

   Figure 2 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
   time due to remote changes in the network topology.  These times are
   measured by observing packet loss in the data plane.  In this
   topology the three routers are considered a System Under Test (SUT).
   NOTE: All routers in the SUT must be the same model and identically  configured.

                -----                       -----------
                |   |   Preferred           |         |
        -----   |R2 |---------------------->|         |
        |   |-->|   | Egress Interface      |         |
        |   |   -----                       |         |
        |R1 |                               |  Tester |
        |   |   -----                       |         |
        |   |-->|   |   Next-Best           |         |
        -----   |R3 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|         |
          ^     |   |   Egress Interface    |         |
          |     -----                       -----------
          |                                     |
          |--------------------------------------
                Ingress Interface

        Figure 2.  IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
                        for Remote Changes

   Figure 3 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
   time with members of an ECMP Set.  These times are measured by
   observing packet loss in the data plane.  In this topology, the DUT

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   is configured with each Egress interface as a member of an ECMP set
   and the Tester emulates multiple next-hop routers (emulates one
   router for each member).

        ---------       Ingress Interface         ---------
        |       |<--------------------------------|       |
        |       |                                 |       |
        |       |       ECMP Set Interface 1      |       |
        |  DUT  |-------------------------------->| Tester|
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|       |
        |       |       ECMP Set Interface N      |       |
        ---------                                 ---------

        Figure 3.  IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
                        for ECMP Convergence

   Figure 4 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
   time with members of a Parallel Link.  These times are measured by
   observing packet loss in the data plane.  In this topology, the DUT
   is configured with each Egress interface as a member of a Parallel
   Link and the Tester emulates the single next-hop router.

        ---------       Ingress Interface         ---------
        |       |<--------------------------------|       |
        |       |                                 |       |
        |       |       Parallel Link Interface 1 |       |
        |  DUT  |-------------------------------->| Tester|
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |               .                 |       |
        |       |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|       |
        |       |       Parallel Link Interface N |       |
        ---------                                 ---------

        Figure 4.  IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
                      for Parallel Link Convergence

   3.2 Test Considerations
   3.2.1 IGP Selection
   The test cases described in section 4 can be used for ISIS or
   OSPF.  The Route Convergence test methodology for both is
   identical.  The IGP adjacencies are established on the Preferred
   Egress Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface.

   3.2.2 BGP Configuration
   The obtained results for IGP Route Convergence may vary if
   BGP routes are installed.  It is recommended that the IGP
   Convergence times be benchmarked without BGP routes installed.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.2.3 IGP Route Scaling
   The number of IGP routes will impact the measured IGP Route
   Convergence because convergence for the entire IGP route table is
   measured.   For results similar to those that would be observed in
   an operational network it is recommended that the number of
   installed routes closely approximate that for routers in the
   network.

   3.2.4 Timers
   There are some timers that will impact the measured IGP Convergence
   time. The following timers should be configured to the minimum value
   prior to beginning execution of the test cases:

        Timer                                   Recommended Value
        -----                                   -----------------
        SONET Failure Indication Delay          <10milliseconds
        IGP Hello Timer                         1 second
        IGP Dead-Interval                       3 seconds
        LSA Generation Delay                    0
        LSA Flood Packet Pacing                 0
        LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing        0
        SPF Delay                               0

   3.2.5 Convergence Time Metrics
   The recommended value for the Packet Sampling Interval [2] is
   100 milliseconds.  Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] is the
   preferred benchmark for IGP Route Convergence.  This benchmark
   must always be reported when the
   Packet Sampling Interval [2] <= 100 milliseconds.
   If the test equipment does not permit the Packet Sampling
   Interval to be set as low as 100 msec, then both the
   Rate-Derived Convergence Time and Loss-Derived Convergence
   Time [2] must be reported.

   3.2.6 Offered Load
   An offered Load of maximum forwarding rate at a fixed packet size
   is recommended for accurate measurement.  The duration of offered
   load must be greater than the convergence time.

   3.2.7 Interface Types
   All test cases in this methodology document may be executed with
   any interface type.  SONET is recommended and specifically
   mentioned in the procedures because it can be configured to have
   no or negligible affect on the measured convergence time.
   Ethernet (10Mb, 100Mb, 1Gb, and 10Gb) is not preferred since
   broadcast media are unable to detect loss of host and rely upon
   IGP Hellos to detect session loss.





Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.3 Reporting Format
   For each test case, it is recommended that the following reporting
   format be completed:

        Parameter                                       Units
        ---------                                       -----
        IGP                                             (ISIS or OSPF)
        Interface Type                                  (GigE, POS, ATM, etc.)
        Packet Size                                     bytes
        IGP Routes                                      number of IGP routes
        Packet Sampling Interval                        seconds or milliseconds
        IGP Timer Values
                SONET Failure Indication Delay          seconds or milliseconds
                IGP Hello Timer                         seconds or milliseconds
                IGP Dead-Interval                       seconds or milliseconds
                LSA Generation Delay                    seconds or milliseconds
                LSA Flood Packet Pacing                 seconds or milliseconds
                LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing        seconds or milliseconds
                SPF Delay                               seconds or milliseconds
        Benchmarks
                Rate-Derived Convergence Time           seconds or milliseconds
                Loss-Derived Convergence Time           seconds or milliseconds
                Restoration Convergence Time            seconds or milliseconds

   4. Test Cases
   4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure
   4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure
        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
        failure event at the DUT's Local Interface.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of the
           routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the preferred
           next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress Interface
           [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Remove SONET on DUT's Local Interface [2] by performing an
           administrative shutdown of the interface.
        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Restore SONET on DUT's Local Interface by administratively
           enabling the interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the link
           up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back to the
           Preferred Egress Interface.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
        SONET indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
        Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.

   4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure
        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
        failure event at the Tester's Neighbor Interface.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of
           the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
           preferred next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Remove SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
           DUT' s Preferred Egress Interface.
        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Restore SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
           DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back to
           the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
        SONET indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
        Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.

   4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure
      Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Remote
        Interface failure event.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to SUT on
          Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 2.  Set the cost of the
           routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the preferred
           next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress Interface
           [2].
        3. Verify traffic is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Remove SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
           SUT' s Preferred Egress Interface.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as SUT detects
           the link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
           over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Restore SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
           SUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as SUT detects the
           link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the
        SONET failure indication, LSA/LSP Flood Packet Pacing,
        LSA/LSP Retransmission Packet Pacing, LSA/LSP Generation
        time, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution Time, Tree
        Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.  The additional
        convergence time contributed by LSP Propagation can be
        obtained by subtracting the Rate-Derived Convergence Time
        measured in 4.1.2 (Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface
        Failure) from the Rate-Derived Convergence Time measured in
        this test case.

   4.2 Convergence Due to PPP Session Failure
        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local PPP Session
        failure event.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of
           the routes so that the IGP routes along the Preferred Egress
           Interface is the preferred next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Remove PPP session from Tester's Neighbor Interface [2]
           connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           PPP session down event and converges all IGP routes and
           traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Restore PPP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the PPP
        failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
        Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.


Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure

        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local IGP Adjacency
        failure event.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of
           the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
           preferred next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Remove IGP adjacency from Tester's Neighbor Interface [2]
           connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           IGP session failure event and converges all IGP routes and
           traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the IGP
        Hello Interval, IGP Dead Interval, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime,
        SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update
        Time.

  4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal

        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to Route Withdrawal.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
         Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of
           the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
           preferred next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Tester withdraws all IGP routes from DUT's Local Interface
           on Preferred Egress Interface.



Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        6. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT converges all
           IGP routes and traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is the SPF Processing and FIB
        Update time as influenced by the SPF delay, SPF Holdtime,
        SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.

   4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change

        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to route cost change.

        Procedure
        1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
           [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1.  Set the cost of
           the routes so that the Preferred Egress Interface is the
           preferred next-hop.
        2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
        4. Tester increases cost for all IGP routes at DUT's Preferred
           Egress Interface so that the Next-Best Egress Interface
           has lower cost and becomes preferred path.
        5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           cost change event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
           over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
        6. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface
           with original lower cost metric.
        7. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT converges all
           IGP routes and traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.

        Results
        There should be no measured packet loss for this case.


    4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure

        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
        failure event of an ECMP Member.

        Procedure
        1. Configure ECMP Set as shown in Figure 3.
        2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           each ECMP member.



Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        3. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        4. Verify traffic routed over all members of ECMP Set.
        5. Remove SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
           one of the DUT's ECMP member interfaces.
        6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
           over the other ECMP members.
        7. Restore SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
           DUT's ECMP member interface.
        8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution
           of traffic over the restored ECMP member.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
        SONET indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.

   4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure

        Objective
        To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
        failure event for a Member of a Parallel Link.

        Procedure
        1. Configure Parallel Link as shown in Figure 4.
        2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
           each Parallel Link member.
        3. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations
           matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress
           Interface [2].
        4. Verify traffic routed over all members of Parallel Link.
        5. Remove SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface [2] connected to
           one of the DUT's Parallel Link member interfaces.
        6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
           the other Parallel Link members.
        7. Restore SONET on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
           DUT's Parallel Link member interface.
        8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
           link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution
           of traffic over the restored Parallel Link member.

        Results
        The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
        SONET indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.





Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   5. Security Considerations

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

   6. References

      [1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP
            Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-02, work
            in progress, January 2004.

      [2] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP
            Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-02, work
            in progress, January 2004

      [3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
            Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

      [4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.

   7. Author's Address

        Scott Poretsky
        Quarry Technologies
        8 New England Executive Park
        Burlington, MA 01803
        USA

        Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
        EMail: sporetsky@quarrytech.com

        Brent Imhoff
        WilTel Communications
        3180 Rider Trail South
        Bridgeton, MO 63045
        USA

        Phone: +1 314 595 6853
        EMail: brent.imhoff@wcg.com











Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT     Benchmarking Methodology for January 2004
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   8.  Full Copyright Statement
        Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights
        Reserved.

        This document and translations of it may be copied and
        furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or
        otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be
        prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in
        part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
        copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such
        copies and derivative works.  However, this document itself may
        not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
        notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
        organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
        Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
        defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or
        as required to translate it into languages other than English.

        The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will
        not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or
        assigns.  This document and the information contained herein is
        provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
        INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES,
        EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY
        THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
        RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
        FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

























Poretsky, Imhoff                                                                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/