[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 6412

 Network Working Group                         S. Poretsky
 Internet Draft                                Allot Communications
 Expires: April 2009
 Intended Status: Informational                Brent Imhoff
                                               Juniper Networks

                                               October 15, 2008

                        Terminology for Benchmarking
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

               <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16.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 terminology for benchmarking Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence.   The terminology is to
   be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally
   observable (black box) data plane measurements.  The terminology
   can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.



Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT           Benchmarking Terminology for     October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

Table of Contents
     1. Introduction .................................................2
     2. Existing definitions .........................................3
     3. Term definitions..............................................4
        3.1 Convergence Event.........................................4
        3.2 Route Convergence.........................................4
        3.3 Full Convergence..........................................5
        3.4 Network Convergence.......................................5
        3.5 Route-Specific Convergence................................6
        3.6 Packet Loss...............................................7
        3.7 Convergence Packet Loss...................................7
        3.8 Convergence Event Instant.................................8
        3.9 Convergence Recovery Instant..............................8
        3.10 First Route Convergence Instant..........................9
        3.11 Convergence Event Transition.............................9
        3.12 Convergence Recovery Transition..........................10
        3.13 Rate-Derived Convergence Time............................10
        3.14 Loss-Derived Convergence Time............................11
        3.15 Route-Specific Convergence Time..........................12
        3.16 Sustained Convergence Validation Time....................13
        3.17 First Route Convergence Time.............................14
        3.18 Reversion Convergence Time...............................15
        3.19 Packet Sampling Interval.................................15
        3.20 Local Interface..........................................16
        3.21 Neighbor Interface.......................................16
        3.22 Remote Interface.........................................17
        3.23 Preferred Egress Interface...............................17
        3.24 Next-Best Egress Interface...............................17
        3.25 Stale Forwarding.........................................18
        3.26 Nested Convergence Events................................18
     4. IANA Considerations...........................................19
     5. Security Considerations.......................................19
     6. Acknowledgements..............................................19
     7. References....................................................19
     8. Author's Address..............................................20

1. Introduction
   This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence.  The motivation and
   applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po07a].  The
   methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po07m].
   The methodology and terminology to be used for benchmarking Route
   Convergence can be applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [Ca90]
   and OSPF [Mo98].  The data plane is measured to obtain black-box
   (externally observable) convergence benchmarking metrics.  The
   purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to
   complete execution of the IGP Route Convergence Methodology [Po07m].
   These terms apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and IGPs.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT           Benchmarking Terminology for     October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   An example of Route Convergence as observed and measured from the
   data plane is shown in Figure 1.  The graph in Figure 1 shows
   Forwarding Rate versus Time.  Time 0 on the X-axis is on the far
   right of the graph.  The Offered Load to the ingress interface of
   the DUT SHOULD equal the measured maximum Throughput [Ba99][Ma98]
   of the DUT and the Forwarding Rate [Ma98] is measured at the egress
   interfaces of the DUT.   The components of the graph and the metrics
   are defined in the Term Definitions section.

                  Full Convergence,
                        Convergence    Convergence
                        Recovery       Event
                        Instant        Instant  Time = 0sec
   Forwarding Rate =       ^              ^       ^     Offered Load =
     Offered Load --> ------\    Packet   /-------- <---Max Throughput
                             \    Loss   /<----Convergence
           Convergence------->\         /      Event Transition
        Recovery Transition    \       /
                                \_____/<------Maximum Packet Loss
                                ^
                          First Route
                      Convergence Instant

        Y-axis = Forwarding Rate
        X-axis = Time (increases right to left to match commercial test
                       equipment displays)

                        Figure 1. Convergence Graph

2.  Existing definitions

   This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG
   work.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

             Latency                   [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.8]
             Frame Loss Rate           [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.6]
             Throughput                [Ref.[Ba91], 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 Reordering         [Ref.[Mo06], section 3.3]

   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, Imhoff                                                [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT           Benchmarking Terminology for     October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

3. Term Definitions
   3.1 Convergence Event

        Definition:
        The occurrence of a planned or unplanned event in the network
        that results in a change in the egress interface of the Device
        Under Test (DUT) for routed packets.

        Discussion:
        Convergence Events include link loss, routing protocol session
        loss, router failure, configuration change, and better next-hop
        learned via a routing protocol.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Convergence Event Instant

   3.2 Route Convergence

        Definition:
        The action to update all components of the router with the
        most recent route change(s) including the Routing
        Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB),
        along with software and hardware tables, such that forwarding
        is successful for one or more route entries.

        Discussion:
        Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event.
        Route Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting
        of data traffic to the Next-best Egress Interface.  Also,
        completion of Route Convergence may or may not be sustained
        over time.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Network Convergence
        Full Convergence
        Convergence Event

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT           Benchmarking Terminology for     October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.3 Full Convergence

        Definition:
        Route Convergence for an entire FIB in which complete recovery
        from the Convergence Event is indicated by the DUT Throughput
        equal to the offered load.

        Discussion:
        When benchmarking convergence, it is useful to measure
        the time to converge an entire FIB.  For example,
        a Convergence Event can be produced for an OSPF table of
        5000 routes so that the time to converge routes 1 through
        5000 is measured.  Completion of Full Convergence is externally
        observable from the data plane when the Throughput of the data
        plane traffic on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the
        offered load.

        Full convergence MAY be measured using Rate-Derived Convergence
        Time (3.13) or calculated using Loss-Derived Convergence Time
        (3.14).  When performing Route-Specific Convergence (3.5)
        measurements, Full Convergence may be obtained by measuring the
        maximum Route Specific Convergence Time (3.15).  Full
        Convergence may or may not be sustained over time.  The
        Sustained Convergence Validation Time (3.16) MUST be applied.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Network Convergence
        Route Convergence
        Convergence Event

   3.4 Network Convergence

        Definition:
        The process of updating of all routing tables, including
        distributed FIBs, in all routers throughout the network.

        Discussion:
        Network Convergence requires completion of all Route
        Convergence operations for all routers in the network following
        a Convergence Event.  Completion of Network Convergence can be
        observed by recovery of System Under Test (SUT) Throughput to
        equal the offered load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no
        Blenders [Ca01][Ci03].

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Route Convergence
        Stale Forwarding

  3.5 Route-Specific Convergence

        Definition:
        Route Convergence for one or more specific route entries in
        the FIB in which recovery from the Convergence Event is
        indicated by data-plane traffic for a flow [Po06] matching that
        route entry(ies) being routed to the Next-Best Egress Interface.

        Discussion:
        When benchmarking convergence, it is sometimes useful to
        measure the time to converge a single flow [Po06] or group of
        flows to benchmark convergence time for one or a few route
        entries in the FIB instead of the entire FIB.  Route-Specific
        Convergence of a flow is externally observable from the data
        plane when the data plane traffic for that flow is routed to
        the Next-Best Egress Interface.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Full Convergence
        Route Convergence
        Convergence Event







Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence


   3.6  Packet Loss

        Definition:
        The number of packets that should have been forwarded
        by a DUT under a constant offered load that were
        not forwarded due to lack of resources.

        Discussion:
        Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate"
        as defined in [Ba91].  The term "Frame Loss" is intended for
        Ethernet Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets.
        Packet Loss can be measured as a reduction in forwarded traffic
        from the Throughput [Ba91] of the DUT.

        Measurement units:
        Number of offered packets that are not forwarded.

        Issues:  None

        See Also:
        Convergence Packet Loss


   3.7 Convergence Packet Loss

        Definition:
        The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event
        until Full Convergence completes.

        Discussion:
        Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and
        packets that were delayed due to buffering.  The Convergence
        Packet Loss observed in a Packet Sampling Interval may or may
        not be equal to the number of packets in the offered load
        during the interval following a Convergence Event (see Figure
        1).

        Measurement Units:
        number of packets

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Packet Loss
        Route Convergence
        Convergence Event
        Packet Sampling Interval

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.8 Convergence Event Instant

        Definition:
        The time instant that a Convergence Event becomes observable in
        the data plane.

        Discussion:
        Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data
        plane as the precise time that the device under test begins
        to exhibit packet loss.

        Measurement Units:
        hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu,
           where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Convergence Event
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Convergence Recovery Instant

   3.9 Convergence Recovery Instant

        Definition:
        The time instant that Full Convergence completion is
        measured and then maintained for an interval of duration
        equal to the Sustained Convergence Validation Time.

        Discussion:
        Convergence Recovery Instant is measurable from the data
        plane as the precise time that the device under test
        completes Full Convergence.

        Measurement Units:
        hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu,
           where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Sustained Convergence Validation Time
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Convergence Event Instant

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.10 First Route Convergence Instant
        Definition:
        The time instant a first route entry has converged
        following a Convergence Event, as observed by receipt of
        the first packet from the Next-Best Egress Interface.

        Discussion:
        The First Route Convergence Instant is an indication that the
        process to achieve Full Convergence has begun.  Any route may
        be the first to converge for First Route Convergence Instant.
        Measurement on the data-plane enables the First Route
        Convergence Instant to be observed without any white-box
        information from the DUT.

        Measurement Units:  N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Route Convergence
        Full Convergence
        Stale Forwarding

   3.11 Convergence Event Transition
        Definition:
        A time interval observed following a Convergence Event in which
        Throughput gradually reduces to a minimum value.

        Discussion:
        The Convergence Event Transition is best observed for Full
        Convergence.  The egress packet rate observed during a
        Convergence Event Transition may not decrease linearly and may
        not decrease to zero.  Both the offered load and the Packet
        Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence
        Event Transition.  For example, even if the Convergence Event
        were to cause the Throughput [Ba91] to drop to zero there would
        be some number of packets observed, unless the Packet Sampling
        Interval is exactly aligned with the Convergence Event.  This
        is further discussed with the term "Packet Sampling Interval".

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Convergence Event
        Full Convergence
        Packet Sampling Interval

Poretsky, Imhoff                                                [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.12 Convergence Recovery Transition

        Definition:
        The characteristic of the DUT in which Throughput gradually
        increases to equal the offered load.

        Discussion:
        The Convergence Recovery Transition is best observed for
        Full Convergence.  The egress packet rate observed during
        a Convergence Recovery Transition may not increase linearly.
        Both the offered load and the Packet Sampling Interval
        influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery
        Transition.  This is further discussed with the term
        "Packet Sampling Interval".

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Full Convergence
        Packet Sampling Interval

   3.13 Rate-Derived Convergence Time

        Definition:
        The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss to persist upon
        occurrence of a Convergence Event until Full Convergence has
        completed.

        Rate-Derived Convergence Time can be measured as the time
        difference from the Convergence Event Instant to the
        Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown with Equation 1.

        (Equation 1)
          Rate-Derived Convergence Time =
              Convergence Recovery Instant - Convergence Event Instant.


        Discussion:
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time SHOULD be measured at the maximum
        Throughput of the DUT.  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.

        Failure to achieve Full Convergence results in a Rate-Derived
        Convergence Time benchmark of infinity.  It is RECOMMENDED that
        the Rate-Derived Convergence Time be measured when benchmarking
        Full Convergence.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Convergence Recovery Instant
        Convergence Event Instant
        Full Convergence

   3.14 Loss-Derived Convergence Time

        Definition:
        The amount of time it takes for Full Convergence to be
        completed as calculated from the amount of Convergence
        Packet Loss.  Loss-Derived Convergence Time can be
        calculated from Convergence Packet Loss as shown with
        Equation 2.

        Equation 2 -
          Loss-Derived Convergence Time =
                Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load
          where units are packets / packets/second = seconds


        Discussion:
        Optimally, the Convergence Event Transition and Convergence
        Recovery Transition are instantaneous so that the
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time = Loss-Derived Convergence Time.
        However, router implementations are less than ideal.
        Loss-Derived Convergence Time gives a better than
        actual result when converging many routes simultaneously
        because it ignores the Convergence Recovery Transition.
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time takes the Convergence Recovery
        Transition into account.  Equation 2 calculates the average
        convergence time over all routes to which packets have been
        sent. Since this average convergence time is in general
        smaller than the maximum convergence time over all routes,
        Loss-Derived Convergence Time is not the preferred metric to
        indicate Full Convergence completion. For this reason the
        RECOMMENDED benchmark metric for Full Convergence is the
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        Guidelines for reporting Loss-Derived Convergence Time are
        provided in [Po07m].

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Convergence Event
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time
        Route-Specific Convergence
        Convergence Event Transition
        Convergence Recovery Transition


   3.15 Route-Specific Convergence Time

        Definition:
        The amount of time it takes for Route-Specific Convergence to
        be completed as calculated from the amount of Convergence
        Packet Loss per flow.

        Route-Specific Convergence Time can be calculated from
        Convergence Packet Loss as shown with Equation 3.

        Equation 3 -
          Route-Specific Convergence Time =
             Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load
          where units are packets / packets/second = seconds

        Discussion:

        It is possible to provide an offered load that has flows
        matching every route entry in the FIB and benchmarking
        Route-Specific Convergence Time for all route entries.  The
        number of flows that can be measured is dependent upon the flow
        measurement capabilities of the Tester.  When benchmarking
        Route-Specific Convergence, Convergence Packet Loss is measured
        for specific flow(s) and Equation 3 is applied for each flow.
        Each flow has a single destination address matching a different
        route entry.  The fastest measurable convergence time is equal
        to the time between two consecutive packets of a flow offered
        by the Tester.

        The Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum,
        maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be
        reported by comparing the results for the different route

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        entries.  It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when
        configuring a priority value for route entry(ies).  Since
        multiple Route-Specific Convergence Times can be measured it is
        possible to have an array of results.  The format for reporting
        Route-Specific Convergence Time is provided in [Po07m].

        The Route-Specific Convergence Time MAY be used to benchmark
        Full Convergence when used in combination with many flows
        matching every FIB entry.  In this case
        Full Convergence = max(Route-Specific Convergence Time).

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Convergence Event
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Route-Specific Convergence

   3.16 Sustained Convergence Validation Time

        Definition:
        The amount of time for which the completion of Full
        Convergence is maintained without additional packet loss.

        Discussion:
        The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to
        produce Convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation
        in Throughput after the completion of Full Convergence is
        observed.  The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation
        Time to be used is 5 seconds.  The BMWG selected 5 seconds
        based upon RFC 2544 [Ba99] which recommends waiting 2 seconds
        for residual frames to arrive and 5 seconds for DUT
        restabilization.

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Full Convergence
        Convergence Recovery Instant

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.17 First Route Convergence Time

        Definition:
        The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss until the
        convergence of a first route entry on the Next-Best Egress
        Interface, as indicated by the First Route Convergence
        Instant.

        Discussion:
        The First Route Convergence Time benchmarking metric can be
        measured when benchmarking either Full Convergence or
        Route-Specific Convergence.  When benchmarking Full Convergence,
        First Route Convergence Time can be measured as the time
        difference from the Convergence Event Instant and the First
        Route Convergence Instant, as shown with Equation 4a.

        (Equation 4a)
        First Route Convergence Time =
           First Route Convergence Instant - Convergence Event Instant

        When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence, First Route
        Convergence Time can be measured as the minimum Route-Specific
        Convergence Time, as shown with Equation 4b.

        (Equation 4b)
        First Route Convergence Time =
           min(Route-Specific Convergence Time)

        First Route Convergence Time should be measured at the maximum
        Throughput of the DUT.  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.  Failure to achieve the First Route
        Convergence Instant results in a First Route Convergence Time
        benchmark of infinity.

        Measurement Units:
        seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Convergence Packet Loss
        First Route Convergence Instant

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.18 Reversion Convergence Time
        Definition:
        The amount of time for the DUT to complete Full Convergence
        to the Preferred Egress Interface, instead of the Next-Best
        Egress Interface, upon recovery from a Convergence Event.

        Discussion:
        Reversion Convergence Time is the amount of time for Full
        Convergence to the original egress interface.  This is
        achieved by recovering from the Convergence Event, such as
        restoring the failed link.  Reversion Convergence Time is
        measured using the Rate-Derived Convergence Time calculation
        technique, as provided in Equation 1.  It is possible to have
        the Reversion Convergence Time differ from the Rate-Derived
        Convergence Time.

        Measurement Units: seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Preferred Egress Interface
        Convergence Event
        Rate-Derived Convergence Time

   3.19 Packet Sampling Interval
        Definition:
        The interval at which the tester (test equipment) polls to make
        measurements for arriving packet flows.

        Discussion:
        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.  Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval
        MUST include Forwarding Rate and Convergence Packet Loss.

        Packet Sampling Interval can influence the Convergence Graph.
        This is particularly true when implementations complete Full
        Convergence in less than the Packet Sampling Interval.  The
        Convergence Event Transition and Convergence Recovery Transition
        can become exaggerated when the Packet Sampling Interval is too
        long.  This will produce a larger than actual Rate-Derived
        Convergence Time.  The recommended value for configuration of
        the Packet Sampling Interval is provided in [Po07m].

        Measurement Units: seconds

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Convergence Packet Loss
        Convergence Event Transition
        Convergence Recovery Transition

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.20 Local Interface

        Definition:
        An interface on the DUT.

        Discussion:
        A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure
        occurred directly on the DUT.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Neighbor Interface
        Remote Interface

   3.21 Neighbor Interface

        Definition:
        The interface on the neighbor router or tester that is
        directly linked to the DUT's Local Interface.

        Discussion:
        A failure of a Neighbor Interface indicates that a
        failure occurred on a neighbor router's interface that
        directly links the neighbor router to the DUT.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Local Interface
        Remote Interface

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

   3.22 Remote Interface

        Definition:
        An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly
        connected to any interface on the DUT.

        Discussion:
        A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure
        occurred on a neighbor router's interface that is not
        directly connected to the DUT.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Local Interface
        Neighbor Interface

   3.23 Preferred Egress Interface

        Definition:
        The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the
        preferred next-hop.

        Discussion:
        The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior
        to a Convergence Event.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues:
        None

        See Also:
        Next-Best Egress Interface

   3.24 Next-Best Egress Interface

        Definition:
        The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the
        second-best next-hop.  It is the same media type and link speed
        as the Preferred Egress Interface

        Discussion:
        The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface
        after a Convergence Event.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Preferred Egress Interface

   3.25 Stale Forwarding

        Definition:
        Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist
        or to route entries with next-hops that are no longer preferred.

        Discussion:
        Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and can
        manifest as a "black-hole" or microloop that produces packet
        loss.  Stale Forwarding can exist until Network Convergence is
        completed.  Stale Forwarding cannot be observed with a single
        DUT.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Network Convergence

   3.26 Nested Convergence Events

        Definition:
        The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route
        table is converging from a prior Convergence Event.

        Discussion:
        The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event
        MUST occur with different neighbors.  A common
        observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be
        the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the
        routes of another neighbor are being installed.

        Measurement Units:
        N/A

        Issues: None

        See Also:
        Convergence Event

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

4. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA considerations.

5. Security Considerations

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

6. Acknowledgements
   Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward,
   Kris Michielsen and the BMWG for their contributions to this work.

7. References
7.1 Normative References

   [Ba91] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
         Interconnection Devices", RFC1242, July 1991.

   [Ba99] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
         Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices",
         RFC 2544, March 1999.

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

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

   [Mo06] Morton, A., et al, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
          November 2006.

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

   [Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for Link-State
         IGP Data Plane Route Convergence",
         draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-16, work in progress,
         October 2008.

   [Po07m] Poretsky, S. and Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Methodology for
         Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence",
         draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16, work in progress,
         October 2008.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

7.2 Informative References

   [Ca01] S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained View
         of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001.

   [Ci03] L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized
         Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE
         Communications Magazine, pp90-97, May 2003.

8. Author's Address

      Scott Poretsky
      Allot Communications
      67 South Bedford Street, Suite 400
      Burlington, MA 01803
      USA
      Phone: + 1 508 309 2179
      Email: sporetsky@allot.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.

Poretsky, Imhoff                                               [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFT             Benchmarking Terminology for   October 2008
                 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

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.

   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, Imhoff                                              [Page 21]

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