[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                         S. Poretsky
 Internet Draft                                NextPoint Networks
 Expires: August 2008
 Intended Status: Informational                Brent Imhoff
                                               Juniper Networks

                                               February 25, 2008

                    Benchmarking Methodology for
             Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

          <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-15.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 (2008).

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    February 2008
               Link-State 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........................................5
     3.3 Reporting Format...........................................7
     4. Test Cases..................................................8
     4.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure.................8
     4.2 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure................9
     4.3 Convergence Due to Local Administrative Shutdown...........10
     4.4 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Loss....................10
     4.5 Convergence Due to Loss of IGP Adjacency...................11
     4.6 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................12
     4.7 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................13
     4.8 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........13
     4.9 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Remote Interface Failure....14
     4.10 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure........15
     5. IANA Considerations.........................................16
     6. Security Considerations.....................................16
     7. Acknowledgements............................................16
     8. References..................................................16
     9. Author's Address............................................17

1. Introduction
   This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Interior
   Gateway Protocol (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] and others.  These methodologies
   apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and IGPs.

2. Existing definitions
   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.

   This document uses much of the terminology defined in [Po07t].
   This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG
   work.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

             Throughput                [Ref.[Br91], section 3.17]
             Device Under Test (DUT)   [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.1]
             System Under Test (SUT)   [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.2]
             Out-of-order Packet       [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2]
             Duplicate Packet          [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.3]
             Packet Loss               [Ref.[Po07t], Section 3.5]

   This document adopts the definition format in Section 2 of RFC 1242
   [Br91].

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 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.

   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).  A Remote Interface [Po07t] failure on router R2
   MUST result in convergence of traffic to router R3.  NOTE: All
   routers in the SUT must be the same model and identically
   configured.

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

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

      Figure 1.  Test Topology 1: IGP Convergence Test Topology
                 for Local Changes

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

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

      Figure 2. Test Topology 2: IGP Convergence Test Topology
                for Convergence Due to Remote Changes

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

      Figure 3. Test Topology 3: IGP Convergence Test Topology
                for ECMP Convergence

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

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

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route 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.

   3.2 Test Considerations
   3.2.1 IGP Selection
   The test cases described in section 4 MAY be used for link-state
   IGPs, such as ISIS or OSPF.  The Route Convergence test methodology
   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.

   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 and nodes closely approximates that
   of the network (e.g. thousands of routes with tens of nodes).
   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 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

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   [Br91][Br99] for each test case.  The type of media may dictate which
   test cases may be executed.  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.  All
   interfaces SHOULD be configured as point-to-point.

   3.2.6 Packet Sampling Interval
   The Packet Sampling Interval [Po07t] value is the fastest measurable
   Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t].  The RECOMMENDED value for the
   Packet Sampling Interval is 10 milliseconds. Rate-Derived Convergence
   Time is the preferred benchmark for IGP Route Convergence.  This
   benchmark must always be reported when the Packet Sampling Interval
   is set <= 10 milliseconds on the test equipment.  If the test
   equipment does not permit the Packet Sampling Interval to be set as
   low as 10 milliseconds, then both the Rate-Derived Convergence Time
   and Loss-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] MUST be reported.

   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.  At least
   one packet per route in the FIB for all routes in the FIB MUST be
   offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling interval. 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 and each route is offered an equal share of the total
   Offered Load.  This requirement for the Offered Load to be
   distributed to match all destinations in the route table creates
   separate flows that are offered to the DUT.  The capability of the
   Tester to measure packet loss for each individual flow (identified
   by the destination address matching a route entry) and the scale
   for the number of individual flows for which it can measure packet
   loss should be considered when benchmarking Route-Specific
   Convergence [Po07t].

   3.2.8 Selection of Convergence Time Benchmark Metrics
   The methodologies in the section 4 test cases MAY be applied to
   benchmark Full Convergence and Route-Specific Convergence with
   benchmarking metrics First Route Convergence Time, Loss-Derived
   Convergence Time, Rate-Derived Convergence Time, Reversion
   Convergence Time, and Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t].
   When benchmarking Full Convergence the Rate-Derived Convergence
   Time benchmarking metric SHOULD be measured.  When benchmarking
   Route-Specific Convergence the ROute-Specific Convergence Time
   benchmarking metric SHOULD be measured.  The First Route Convergence
   Time benchmarking metric MAY be measured when benchmarking either
   Full Convergence or Route-Specific Convergence.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.3 Reporting Format
   For each test case, it is recommended that the reporting table below
   is completed and all time values SHOULD be reported with resolution
   as specified in [Po07t].

        Parameter                              Units
        ---------                              -----
        Test Case                              test case number
        Test Topology                          (1, 2, 3, or 4)
        IGP                                    (ISIS, OSPF, other)
        Interface Type                         (GigE, POS, ATM, other)
        Packet Size offered to DUT             bytes
        IGP Routes advertised to DUT           number of IGP routes
        Nodes in emulated network              number of nodes
        Packet Sampling Interval on Tester     milliseconds
        IGP Timer Values configured on DUT:
            Interface Failure Indication Delay seconds
            IGP Hello Timer                    seconds
            IGP Dead-Interval                  seconds
            LSA Generation Delay               seconds
            LSA Flood Packet Pacing            seconds
            LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing   seconds
            SPF Delay                          seconds
        Forwarding Metrics
            Total Packets Offered to DUT       number of Packets
            Total Packets Routed by DUT        number of Packets
            Convergence Packet Loss            number of Packets
            Out-of-Order Packets               number of Packets
            Duplicate Packets                  number of Packets
        Convergence Benchmarks
          Full Convergence
              First Route Convergence Time      seconds
              Rate-Derived Convergence Time     seconds
              Loss-Derived Convergence Time     seconds
              Route-Specific Convergence
               Number of Routes Measured        number of flows
               Route-Specific Convergence Time[n] array of seconds
               Minimum R-S Convergence Time     seconds
               Maximum R-S Convergence Time     seconds
               Median R-S Convergence Time      seconds
               Average R-S Convergence Time     seconds
          Reversion
              Reversion Convergence Time        seconds
              First Route Convergence Time      seconds
              Route-Specific Convergence
               Number of Routes Measured        number of flows
               Route-Specific Convergence Time[n] array of seconds
               Minimum R-S Convergence Time     seconds
               Maximum R-S Convergence Time     seconds
               Median R-S Convergence Time      seconds
               Average R-S Convergence Time     seconds

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

4. Test Cases

   It is RECOMMENDED that all applicable test cases be executed for
   best characterization of the DUT.  The test cases follow a generic
   procedure tailored to the specific DUT configuration and Convergence
   Event[Po07t].  This generic procedure is as follows:

      1. Establish DUT configuration and install routes.
      2. Send offered load with traffic traversing Preferred Egress
         Interface [Po07t].
      3. Introduce Convergence Event to force traffic to Next-Best
         Egress Interface [Po07t].
      4. Measure First Route Convergence Time.
      5. Measure Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Rate-Derived
         Convergence Time, and optionally the Route-Specific
         Convergence Times.
      6. Wait the Sustained Convergence Validation Time to ensure there
         no residual packet loss.
      7. Recover from Convergence Event.
      8. Measure Reversion Convergence Time, and optionally the First
         Route Convergence Time and Route-Specific Convergence Times.

   4.1 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 is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove link on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   5. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. 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.  Optionally, Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Restore link on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   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].

   4.2 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
      SUT 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 First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as SUT detects the
      link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. 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.  Optionally, Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   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 Preferred Egress Interface.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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 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].  This test case may produce Stale Forwarding [Po07t] due to
   microloops which may increase the measured convergence times.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                             [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   4.3 Convergence Due to Local Adminstrative Shutdown
   Objective
   To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a administrative shutdown
   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 is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Perform adminstrative shutdown on the DUT's Preferred Egress
      Interface.
   5. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT converges
      all IGP routes and traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
      Optionally, Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be
      measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Restore Preferred Egress Interface by administratively enabling
      the interface.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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 SPF delay,
   SPF Hold time, SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware
   Update Time [Po07a].

   4.4 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Loss
   Objective
   To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a Local Layer 2
   session loss.

   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].

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3. Verify traffic is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Tester removes Layer 2 session from DUT's Preferred Egress
      Interface [Po07t].  It is RECOMMENDED that this be achieved with
      messaging, but the method MAY vary with the Layer 2 protocol.
   5. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      Layer 2 session down event and begins to converge IGP routes and
      traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. 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.  Optionally,
      Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Restore Layer 2 session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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].

   4.5 Convergence Due to Loss of IGP Adjacency
   Objective
   To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to loss of the IGP
   Adjacency.

   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 is routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
   4. Remove IGP adjacency from Tester's Neighbor Interface [Po07t]
      connected to Preferred Egress Interface.  The Layer 2 session
      MUST be maintained.
   5. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      loss of IGP adjacency and begins to converge IGP routes and
      traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. 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.  Optionally,
      Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t], as DUT detects the session recovery
      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].

   4.6 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.
      It is RECOMMENDED that the IGP routes be IGP external routes
      for which the Tester would be emulating a preferred and a
      next-best Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR).
   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. Tester withdraws all IGP routes from DUT's Local Interface
      on Preferred Egress Interface.  The Tester records the time it
      sends the withdrawal message(s).  This MAY be achieved with
      inclusion of a timestamp in the traffic payload.
   5. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      route withdrawal event and begins to converge IGP routes and
      traffic over the Next-Best Egress Interface.  This is measured
      from the time that the Tester sent the withdrawal message(s).
   6. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT withdraws
      routes and converges all IGP routes and traffic over the
      Next-Best Egress Interface.  Optionally, Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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 or route calculation delay,
   Hold time, Execution Time, and Hardware Update Time [Po07a].

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   4.7 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 is 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 First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      cost change event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the Next-Best Egress Interface.
   6. 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.  Optionally, Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be measured.
   7. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   8. Re-advertise IGP routes to DUT's Preferred Egress Interface
      with original lower cost metric.
   9. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [Po07t], as DUT converges all IGP routes and
      traffic over the Preferred Egress Interface.

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

   4.8 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.
   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 is 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.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   6. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the other ECMP members.
   7. 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. At the same time measure
      Out-of-Order Packets [Po06] and Duplicate Packets [Po06].
      Optionally, Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be
      measured.
   8. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   9. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's ECMP member interface.
   10. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and Route-Specific
      Convergence Times [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].

   4.9 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Remote Interface Failure

   Objective
   To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a remote interface
   failure event for an ECMP Member.

   Procedure
   1. Configure ECMP Set as shown in Figure 2 in which the links
      from R1 to R2 and R1 to R3 are members of an ECMP Set.
   2. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to SUT to balance
      traffic to each ECMP member.
   3. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet
      size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to
      SUT on Ingress Interface [Po07t].
   4. Verify traffic is routed over all members of ECMP Set.
   5. Remove link on Tester's Neighbor Interface to R2 or R3.
   6. Measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as SUT detects
      the link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and
      traffic over the other ECMP members.
   7. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [Po07t] as SUT detects
      the link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic
      over the other ECMP members.  At the same time measure
      Out-of-Order Packets [Po06] and Duplicate Packets [Po06].
      Optionally, Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be
      measured.
   8. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   9. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface to R2 or R3.

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   10. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and
      Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t], as SUT 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].

   4.10 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 is 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 First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] as DUT detects the
      link down event and begins to converge IGP routes and traffic
      over the other Parallel Link members.
   7. 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.  At the same time measure
      Out-of-Order Packets [Po06] and Duplicate Packets [Po06].
      Optionally, Route-Specific Convergence Times [Po07t] MAY be
      measured.
   8. Stop offered load.  Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
      Restart offered load.
   9. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
      DUT's Parallel Link member interface.
   10. Measure Reversion Convergence Time [Po07t], and optionally
      measure First Route Convergence Time [Po07t] and
      Route-Specific Convergence Times [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].

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

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, Ron Bonica, David Ward,
   Kris Michielsen and 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.

   [Po06] Poretsky, S., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking
          Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689,
          November 2006.

   [Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State
           IGP Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-15,
           work in progress, February 2008.

   [Po07t] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for
           Link-State IGP Convergence",
           draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-15, work in
           progress, February 2008.

8.2 Informative References
      None

Poretsky and Imhoff                                            [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

9. Author's Address

        Scott Poretsky
        NextPoint Networks
        3 Federal Street
        Billerica, MA 01821
        USA
        Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
        EMail: sporetsky@nextpointnetworks.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 (2008).

   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 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT          Benchmarking Methodology for      February 2008
               Link-State 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 18]

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