[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: January 2008
   Intended Status: Informational
                                                Scott Poretsky
                                                Reef Point Systems

                                                Brent Imhoff
                                                Juniper Networks

                                                July 2007

                    Benchmarking Methodology for
                  IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

          <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-13.txt>

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

Copyright Notice
   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

ABSTRACT
   This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence.   The methodology is to
   be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally
   observable (black box) data plane measurements.  The methodology
   can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                           [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for     July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

Table of Contents
     1. Introduction ...............................................2
     2. Existing definitions .......................................2
     3. Test Setup..................................................3
     3.1 Test Topologies............................................3
     3.2 Test Considerations........................................4
     3.3 Reporting Format...........................................6
     4. Test Cases..................................................7
     4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure............................7
     4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure...............7
     4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure............7
     4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure..............8
     4.2 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Failure.................9
     4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure...................10
     4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................10
     4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................11
     4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........11
     4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure.........12
     5. IANA Considerations.........................................13
     6. Security Considerations.....................................13
     7. Acknowledgements............................................13
     8. Normative References........................................13
     9. Author's Address............................................14

1. Introduction
   This document describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
   Convergence.  The applicability of this testing is described in
   [Po07a] and the new terminology that it introduces is defined in
   [Po07t].  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 [Po07a].  The
   black-box test designs benchmark the data plane and account for
   all of the factors contributing to convergence time, as discussed
   in [Po07a].  The methodology (and terminology) for benchmarking route
   convergence can be applied to any link-state  IGP such as ISIS [Ca90]
   and OSPF [Mo98].  These methodologies apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic
   as well as IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs.

2. Existing definitions

   This document uses much of the terminology defined in [Po07t].  The
   term "Throughput" is defined in RFC 2544 [Br99].

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [Br97].  RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
   intent of standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this
   document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
   document.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      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, Layer 2
   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 at the Tester.

        ---------       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 at the Tester.
   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 Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Set.  These
   times are measured by observing packet loss in the data plane at
   the Tester.  In this topology, the DUT is configured with each
   Egress interface

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   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 at the Tester.  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 Routing Protocol Configuration
   The obtained results for IGP Route Convergence may vary if
   other routing protocols are enabled and routes learned via those
   protocols are installed.  IGP convergence times MUST be benchmarked
   without routes installed from other protocols.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.2.3 IGP Route Scaling
   The number of IGP routes will impact the measured IGP Route
   Convergence.  To obtain results similar to those that would be
   observed in an operational network, it is recommended that the
   number of installed routes closely approximates that the network.
   The number of areas (for OSPF) and levels (for ISIS) can impact
   the benchmark results.

   3.2.4 Timers
   There are some timers that will impact the measured IGP Convergence
   time. Benchmarking metrics may be measured at any fixed values for
   these timers.  It is RECOMMENDED that the following timers be
   configured to the minimum values listed:

        Timer                                   Recommended Value
        -----                                   -----------------
        Link 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 [Po07t] is
   100 milliseconds.  Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] is the
   preferred benchmark for IGP Route Convergence.  This benchmark
   must always be reported when the Packet Sampling Interval [Po07t]
   <= 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 [Po07t] must be reported.  The Packet Sampling
   Interval value MUST be reported as the smallest measurable
   convergence time.

   3.2.6 Interface Types
   All test cases in this methodology document may be executed with
   any interface type.  All interfaces MUST be the same media and
   Throughput [Br91][Br99] for each test case.  This is because each
   interface type has a unique mechanism for detecting link failures
   and the speed at which that mechanism operates will influence
   the measure results.  Media and protocols MUST be configured for
   minimum failure detection delay to minimize the contribution to
   the measured Convergence time.  For example, configure SONET with
   the minimum carrier-loss-delay.








Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.2.7 Offered Load
   The offered Load MUST be the Throughput of the device as defined
   in [Br91] and benchmarked in [Br99] at a fixed packet size.
   Packet size is measured in bytes and includes the IP header and
   payload.  The packet size is selectable and MUST be recorded.
   The Forwarding Rate [Ma98] MUST be measured at the Preferred Egress
   Interface and the Next-Best Egress Interface.  The duration of
   offered load MUST be greater than the convergence time.  The
   destination addresses for the offered load MUST be distributed
   such that all routes are matched.  This enables Full Convergence
   [Po07t] to be observed.

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

        Parameter                              Units
        ---------                              -----
        IGP                                    (ISIS or OSPF)
        Interface Type                         (GigE, POS, ATM, etc.)
        Packet Size offered to DUT             bytes
        IGP Routes advertised to DUT           number of IGP routes
        Packet Sampling Interval on Tester     seconds or milliseconds
        IGP Timer Values configured on DUT
            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















Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove Preferred Egress link on DUT's Local Interface [Po07t] by
      performing an administrative shutdown of the interface.
   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
      the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Restore Preferred Egress link on DUT's Local Interface by
      administratively enabling the interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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
   link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Hold time, SPF Execution
   Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].

   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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].



Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t] connected to
      DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
      the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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
   link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Hold time, SPF Execution
   Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].

   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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   3. Verify traffic is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t] connected to
      SUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as SUT detects
      the link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back
      to the Preferred Egress Interface.






Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   Results
   The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the
   link failure indication, LSA/LSP Flood Packet Pacing,
   LSA/LSP Retransmission Packet Pacing, LSA/LSP Generation
   time, SPF delay, SPF Hold time, SPF Execution Time, Tree
   Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].  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 Layer 2 Session Failure
   Objective
   To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local Layer 2
   Session failure event.

   Procedure
   1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
      Preferred Egress Interface [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove Layer 2 session from Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t]
      connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      Layer 2 session down event and converges all IGP routes and
      traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Restore Layer 2 session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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 Layer 2
   failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Hold time, SPF Execution
   Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].











Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove IGP adjacency from Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t]
      connected to Preferred Egress Interface.
   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      IGP session failure event and converges all IGP routes and
      traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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 Hold time, SPF
   Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].

   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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Tester withdraws all IGP routes from DUT's Local Interface
      on Preferred Egress Interface.


Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT withdraws
      routes and converges all IGP routes and traffic over the
      Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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 Hold time, SPF
   Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].

   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 [Po07t] and Next-Best Egress Interface
      [Po07t] 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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   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 [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      cost change event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   7. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface
      with original lower cost metric.
   8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT converges all
      IGP routes and traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.

   Results
   There should be no externally observable IGP Route Convergence
   and 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.


Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   Procedure
   1. Configure ECMP Set as shown in Figure 3.
   2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
      each ECMP member.
   3. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   4. Verify traffic routed over all members of ECMP Set.
   5. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t] connected to
      one of the DUT's ECMP member interfaces.
   6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
      over the other ECMP members.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's ECMP member interface.
   9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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 Local link
   failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time
   [Po07a].

   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.  The links can be used
   for data Load Balancing

   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 offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      DUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   4. Verify traffic routed over all members of Parallel Link.
   5. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t] connected to
      one of the DUT's Parallel Link member interfaces.
   6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
      the other Parallel Link members.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart Offered Load.
   8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's Parallel Link member interface.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [Po07t] 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
   link failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update
   Time [Po07a].

5. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA considerations.

6. 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.

7. Acknowledgements
   Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, and participants of
   the BMWG for their contributions to this work.

8. References
8.1 Normative References

   [Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
          Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, IETF, March 1991.

   [Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997

   [Br99] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
          Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, IETF, March 1999.

   [Ca90] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
          Environments", RFC 1195, IETF, December 1990.

   [Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
          Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

   [Mo98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.

   [Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Considerations for Benchmarking IGP
           Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-13,
           work in progress, July 2007.

   [Po07t] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP
           Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-13,
           work in progress, July 2007.

8.2 Informative References
      None

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

9. Author's Address

        Scott Poretsky
        Reef Point Systems
        8 New England Executive Park
        Burlington, MA 01803
        USA
        Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
        EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com

        Brent Imhoff
        Juniper Networks
        1194 North Mathilda Ave
        Sunnyvale, CA 94089
        USA
        Phone: + 1 314 378 2571
        EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for       July 2007
                      IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement
   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Poretsky and Imhoff                                          [Page 15]


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