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

Versions: (draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Network Working Group                                      M. Georgescu
Internet Draft                                                    NAIST
Intended status: Informational                                G. Lencse
Expires: April 2016                         Szechenyi Istvan University
                                                       October 15, 2015



         Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
            draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-00.txt


Abstract

   There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of
   network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the
   IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This
   document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the
   performance of IPv6 transition technologies.  More specifically,
   this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ
   encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be
   very well tested using the recommendations of RFC2544 and RFC5180.
   The methodology also includes a tentative metric for benchmarking
   load scalability.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), 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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2016.




Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
   3. Test Setup.....................................................5
      3.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................6
      3.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..6
   4. Test Traffic...................................................7
      4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................7
         4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................8
      4.2. Protocol Addresses........................................8
      4.3. Traffic Setup.............................................8
   5. Modifiers......................................................9
   6. Benchmarking Tests.............................................9
      6.1. Throughput................................................9
      6.2. Latency...................................................9
      6.3. Packet Delay Variation....................................9
         6.3.1. PDV..................................................9
         6.3.2. IPDV................................................10
      6.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................11
      6.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................11
      6.6. System Recovery..........................................12
      6.7. Reset....................................................12
   7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
   Technologies.....................................................12


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
      7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................12
      7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................12
   8. DNS Resolution Performance....................................13
      8.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................13
      8.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................14
   9. Scalability...................................................15
      9.1. Test Setup...............................................16
         9.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies..........16
         9.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition
         Technologies...............................................16
      9.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation.....................17
   10. Summarizing function and repeatability.......................18
   11. Security Considerations......................................18
   12. IANA Considerations..........................................19
   13. Conclusions..................................................19
   14. References...................................................19
      14.1. Normative References....................................19
      14.2. Informative References..................................20
   15. Acknowledgements.............................................20
   Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................21

1. Introduction

   The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors
   and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and
   IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544]
   is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains
   complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP
   version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition
   technologies.

   IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes
   cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this
   issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and
   implemented.

   This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6
   transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights
   about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful
   feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going
   through the IPv6 transition process.

   The document also includes an approach to quantify load scalability.
   Load scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully
   accommodate higher loads. Because poor scalability usually leads to
   poor performance, the proposed approach is to quantify the load
   scalability by measuring the performance degradation created by a
   higher number of network flows.



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies

   Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known
   as dual stack) and encapsulation, are presented in [RFC4213].
   IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the
   transition technologies employ at least one variation of these
   mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333])
   are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of
   the transition technologies can prove useful.

   Tentatively, we can consider a production network transitioning to
   IPv6 as being constructed using the following IP domains:

   o  Domain A: IPvX specific domain

   o  Core domain: which may be IPvY specific or dual-stack(IPvX and
      IPvY)

   o  Domain B: IPvX specific domain

   Note: X,Y are part of the {4,6} set.

   According to the technology used for the core domain traversal the
   transition technologies can be categorized as follows:

   1. Single Translation: In this case, the production network is
      assumed to have only two domains, Domain A and the Core domain.
      The core domain is assumed to be IPvY specific. IPvX packets are
      translated to IPvY at the edge between Domain A and the Core
      domain.

   2. Dual-stack: the core domain devices implement both IP protocols

   3. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all
      three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
      domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to
      traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to
      IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain.
      Subsequently, the IPvY packets are decapsulated at the edge
      between the Core domain and Domain B.

   4. Double translation: The production network is assumed to have all
      three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
      domain is IPvY specific. A translation mechanism is employed for
      the traversal of the core network. The IPvX packets are
      translated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the
      Core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are translated back
      to IPvX at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B.



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   The performance of Dual-stack transition technologies can be fully
   evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by
   [RFC2544] and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the
   other 3 categories: Single translation, Encapsulation and Double
   translation transition technologies.

   Another important aspect by which the IPv6 transition technologies
   can be categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping
   algorithms. The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms
   (e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between
   IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port
   number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of
   reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful
   mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition
   technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed
   can be an important performance indicator for these technologies.
   Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional
   benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED.

2. Conventions used in this document

   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 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

   Although these terms are usually associated with protocol
   requirements, in this doc the terms are requirements for users and
   systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim
   conformance with this specification.

3. Test Setup

   The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition
   technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in
   Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options
   presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well.
   However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be
   explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6
   transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and
   Encapsulation transition technologies.

   Although both single tester and sender/receiver setups are
   applicable to this methodology, the single tester setup will be used
   to describe the DUT setup options.



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   For the test setups presented in this memo, dynamic routing SHOULD
   be employed. However, the presence of routing and management frames
   can represent unwanted background data that can affect the
   benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in
   [RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management
   frames SHOULD be used here as well. Moreover, the "Trial
   description" recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are
   valid for this memo as well.

   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
   are valid for this document as well assuming that an IPv6 version of
   the routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used.

3.1. Single translation Transition Technologies

   For the evaluation of Single translation transition technologies a
   single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is
   responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In
   this context, the tester device should be configured to support both
   IPvX and IPvY.

                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
              +------------|IPvX   tester   IPvY|<-------------+
              |            |                    |              |
              |            +--------------------+              |
              |                                                |
              |            +--------------------+              |
              |            |                    |              |
              +----------->|IPvX     DUT    IPvY|--------------+
                           |                    |
                           +--------------------+
                           Figure 1. Test setup 1

3.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies

   For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double
   translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2)
   SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX
   packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or
   translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
   decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and
   forwarded to the tester.








Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015

                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
     +---------------------|IPvX   tester   IPvX|<------------------+
     |                     |                    |                   |
     |                     +--------------------+                   |
     |                                                              |
     |      +--------------------+      +--------------------+      |
     |      |                    |      |                    |      |
     +----->|IPvX    DUT 1  IPvY |----->|IPvY   DUT 2   IPvX |------+
            |                    |      |                    |
            +--------------------+      +--------------------+
                            Figure 2. Test setup 2


   One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to
   reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this,
   additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single
   DUT setup.

   Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single
   DUT setup, in order to test the decapsulation efficiency, the tester
   SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY.

4. Test Traffic

   The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD
   meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements
   are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside
   of the scope of this document.

4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes

   [RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly
   used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network).
   [RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and
   FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack
   transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies
   the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST
   be considered.

   The encapsulation/translation process generates different size
   frames on different segments of the test setup. For instance, the
   single translation transition technologies will create different
   frame sizes on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX
   packets are translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the
   bandwidth of the employed media is not exceeded. To prevent
   exceeding the limitations imposed by the media, the frame size
   overhead needs to be taken into account when calculating the maximum


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   theoretical frame rates. The calculation method for the Ethernet, as
   well as a calculation example are detailed in Appendix A. The
   details of the media employed for the benchmarking tests MUST be
   noted in all test reports.

   In the context of frame size overhead, MTU recommendations are
   needed in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the
   virtual encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical
   network interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the
   larger MTU between the physical NICs and virtual
   encapsulation/translation interfaces SHOULD be set for all
   interfaces of the DUT and tester. To be more specific, the minimum
   IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation
   overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as
   well as virtual ones.

4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet

   Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
   SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links:
   64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and
   9216.

   The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
   overhead are presented in Appendix A1.

4.2. Protocol Addresses

   The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of
   [RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4.

   Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible
   for the transition technologies which employ translation. Proposed
   IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation
   [RFC6145] do not support the use of extension headers.

4.3. Traffic Setup

   Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
   SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional
   traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance
   assessment.

   Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more
   reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols.
   Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of
   this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.




Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   Considering that the stateful transition technologies need to manage
   the state table for each connection, a connection-oriented transport
   layer protocol needs to be used with the test traffic. Consequently,
   TCP test traffic SHOULD be employed for the tests described in
   Section 7 of this document.

5. Modifiers

   The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
   introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
   aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
   extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180]
   describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their
   recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies
   testing as well.

6. Benchmarking Tests

   The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended
   benchmarking tests.

6.1. Throughput

   Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.2. Latency

   Objective: To determine the latency as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.3. Packet Delay Variation

   Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay
   Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is
   RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grain analysis of delay
   variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed as well.

6.3.1. PDV

   Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in
   [RFC5481].



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
   for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
   frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
   throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
   least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
   by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the
   stream using the formula:

   PDV=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin

   Where:   D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was
   described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream

          Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream

   As recommended in [RFC 2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
   times with the reported value being the average of the recorded
   values. Moreover, the margin of error from the average MAY be
   evaluated following the formula:

                  StDev
   MoE= alpha * ----------
                 sqrt(N)

   Where: alpha   - critical value; the recommended value is 2.576 for
   a 99% level of confidence
         StDev    - standard deviation
         N        - number of test iterations

   Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with
   a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame
   size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. A column
   for the margin of error values MAY as well be displayed. Following
   the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of
   measurement are milliseconds.

6.3.2. IPDV

   Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined
   in [RFC5481].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
   for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
   frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
   throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
   least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
   by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for
   each of the frames using the formula:



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1)

   Where: D(i)   - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream

          D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream

   Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to
   over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement
   SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Davg, and Dmax

   Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream

          Davg - the average One-way delay of the stream

          Dmax - the maximum One-way delay in the stream

   As recommended in RFC 2544, the test MUST be repeated at least 20
   times.

   Reporting format: The average of the 3 proposed values SHOULD be
   reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row
   for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the
   frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and
   sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. A column for the
   margin of error values MAY as well be displayed. Following the
   recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement
   are milliseconds.

6.4. Frame Loss Rate

   Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in
   [RFC1242], of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates
   and frame sizes.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.5. Back-to-back Frames

   Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
   back frames as defined in [RFC1242].

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].





Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
6.6. System Recovery

   Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
   overload condition.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].

6.7. Reset

   Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
   device or software reset.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC6201].

7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
   Technologies

   This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
   IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
   section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
   parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5).

   In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function a network node can
   have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the
   network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this
   function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511].
   Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2,
   5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD
   be performed:

7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity

   Objective: To determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP
   connections supported through or with the DUT, as defined in [RFC
   2647]. This test is supposed to find the maximum number of entries
   the DUT can store in its state table.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].

7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate

   Objective: To determine the maximum TCP connection establishment
   rate through or with the DUT, as defined by RFC [2647].  This test


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   is expected to find the maximum rate at which the DUT can update its
   connection table.

   Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].

   Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].

8. DNS Resolution Performance

   This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see
   [RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies
   such as NAT64.

8.1. Test and Traffic Setup

   The test setup follows the setup proposed for single translation
   IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1.

      1:AAAA query    +--------------------+
         +------------|                    |<-------------+
         |            |IPv6   tester   IPv4|              |
         |  +-------->|                    |----------+   |
         |  |         +--------------------+ 3:empty  |   |
         |  | 6:synt'd                         AAAA,  |   |
         |  |   AAAA  +--------------------+ 5:valid A|   |
         |  +---------|                    |<---------+   |
         |            |IPv6     DUT    IPv4|              |
         +----------->|       (DNS64)      |--------------+
                      +--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query


   The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps.

   1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64
   server)

   2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64
   server to authoritative DNS server)

   3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)

   4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
   to authoritative DNS server)

   5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
   server)


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)

   The tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS
   server.

   Please note that:

     - If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit
        then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are
        omitted).
     - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in
        step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are
        omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA
        record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client.
     - As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6
        MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a
        DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but
        either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and
        the authoritative DNS server.

8.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance

   Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the number of
   successfully processed DNS requests per second.

   Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate
   to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a
   predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding
   query, having the default value 1 second) from the DUT. If the count
   of sent queries is equal to the count of received replies, the rate
   of the queries is raised and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are
   received than queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced
   and the test is rerun.

   The number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest rate
   at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to the
   number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment.

   The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the average and
   margin of error (as described by Section 6.3.1) of the number of
   processed DNS queries per second SHOULD be calculated.

   Details and parameters:

   1. Caching
   First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
   domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
   exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.



Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   domain names which are repeated (early enough to be still in the
   cache).

   2. Existence of AAAA record
   First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not
   have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record.
   Then new tests MAY be executed with 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. domain names
   which have an AAAA record.

   Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all
   their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
   0% repeated DNS names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED
   and the other combinations are OPTIONAL.

   Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64/DNS46 test is the
   average of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured
   with the above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The average SHOULD
   be complemented with the margin of error to show the stability of
   the result. If optional tests are done, the average and margin of
   error pairs MAY be presented in a two dimensional table where the
   dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names and the
   proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two table
   headings SHOULD contain these percentage values. Alternatively, the
   results MAY be presented as the corresponding two dimensional graph,
   too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the average values with the
   margin of error as error bars. From both the table and the graph,
   one dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any given fixed percentage
   value of the other dimension. In this case, the fixed value MUST be
   given together with a one dimensional table or graph.

9. Scalability

   Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
   network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
   yet been approached.

   Scalability can be defined as the ability of each transition
   technology to accommodate network growth.

   Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering
   this, scalability can be measured by quantifying the network
   performance degradation while the network grows.

   The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
   modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
   degradation can be quantified.





Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
9.1. Test Setup

   The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create
   network growth.

9.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies

   In the case of single translation transition technologies the
   network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network
   flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 3).



                        +-------------------------+
           +------------|NF1                   NF1|<-------------+
           |  +---------|NF2      tester       NF2|<----------+  |
           |  |      ...|                         |           |  |
           |  |   +-----|NFn                   NFn|<------+   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   |                                       |   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   +---->|NFn                   NFn|-------+   |  |
           |  |      ...|           DUT           |           |  |
           |  +-------->|NF2    (translator)   NF2|-----------+  |
           +----------->|NF1                   NF1|--------------+
                        +-------------------------+
                           Figure 3. Test setup 3



9.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies

   Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a
   multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point
   scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is
   designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the
   recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of
   "client" DUTs connected to the same "server" DUT (See Figure 4).













Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
                          +-------------------------+
     +--------------------|NF1                   NF1|<--------------+
     |  +-----------------|NF2      tester       NF2|<-----------+  |
     |  |              ...|                         |            |  |
     |  |   +-------------|NFn                   NFn|<-------+   |  |
     |  |   |             +-------------------------+        |   |  |
     |  |   |                                                |   |  |
     |  |   |    +-----------------+    +---------------+    |   |  |
     |  |   +--->| NFn  DUT n  NFn |--->|NFn         NFn| ---+   |  |
     |  |        +-----------------+    |               |        |  |
     |  |     ...                       |               |        |  |
     |  |        +-----------------+    |     DUT n+1   |        |  |
     |  +------->| NF2  DUT 2  NF2 |--->|NF2         NF2|--------+  |
     |           +-----------------+    |               |           |
     |           +-----------------+    |               |           |
     +---------->| NF1  DUT 1  NF1 |--->|NF1         NF1|-----------+
                 +-----------------+    +---------------+
                             Figure 4. Test setup 4

   This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the "server"
   device. However, for testing the scalability of the "client" DUTs
   additional recommendations are needed.
   For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be
   created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same "client"
   device and n the number of "client" devices connected to the same
   "server" device.
   For the translation based transition technologies the "client"
   devices can be separately tested with n network flows using the test
   setup presented in Figure 3.

9.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation

   Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
   parallel network flows.

   Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have
   to be performed for one network flow.

   The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows. The
   performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be
   calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results
   and the n-flow results, using the following formula:


              Xn - X1
       Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow
                 X1                   Xn - result for n-flows




Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
   a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
   specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
   SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
   SHOULD also state the applied frame rate.

10. Summarizing function and repeatability

   To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using
   the tests presented in Sections 6-9, multiple test iterations are
   recommended. Following the recommendations of RFC2544, the average
   was chosen to be the summarizing function for the reported values.
   While median can be an alternative summarizing function, a rationale
   for using one or the other is needed.

   The median can be useful for summarizing especially when outliers
   are not a desired quantity. However, in the overall performance of a
   network device the outliers can represent a malfunction or
   misconfiguration in the DUT, which should be taken into account.

   The average is a more inclusive summarizing function. Moreover, as
   underlined in [DeNijs], the average is less exposed to statistical
   uncertainty. These reasons make it the RECOMMENDED summarizing
   function for the results of different test iterations, unless stated
   otherwise.

   To express the repeatability of the benchmarking tests through a
   number, the Margin of error (MoE) can be used. Of course, other
   functions, such as standard error could be employed as well. The
   advantage the MoE has is expressing an associated confidence
   interval by using the alpha parameter.

   The recommended formula for calculating the MoE is presented in
   Section 6.3.1.

11. Security Considerations

   Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
   technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
   environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
   specified in the sections above.

   The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
   and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
   traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
   management network.

   Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
   solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
   benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
   from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
   networks.

12. IANA Considerations

   The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6
   benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was
   reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient
   for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies.

13. Conclusions

   The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be used
   for benchmarking the performance of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-
   stack supporting network devices. This document presents
   complementary recommendations dedicated to IPv6 transition
   technologies. Furthermore, the methodology includes a tentative
   approach for benchmarking load scalability by quantifying the
   performance degradation associated with network growth.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

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

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

   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

   [RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
             Network Interconnect Devices", [RFC2544], March 1999.

   [RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
             Devices", [RFC2647], August 1999.

   [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
             Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
             November 2002.

   [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S. and T. Martin,
             "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
             [RFC3511], April 2003.


Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
   [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
             Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
             Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.

   [RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
             Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.

   [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera,
             "Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, March 2011.



14.2. Informative References

    [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
             Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October
             2005.

   [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
             IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.

   [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
             Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
             Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6333] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
             "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
             April 2013.

   [DeNijs]  De Nijs, R., and Thomas Levin Klausen. "On the expected
             difference between mean and median." Electronic Journal of
             Applied Statistical Analysis 6.1 (2013): 110-117.

15. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Professor Youki Kadobayashi for his
   constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the
   NECOMA project members for their continuous support. We would also
   like to thank Scott Bradner, Al Morton and Fred Baker for their
   detailed review of the draft and very helpful suggestions. Other
   helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran
   Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka,
   Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka Mawatari,Kostas Pentikousis and Bela
   Almasi. A special thank you to the RFC Editor Team for their
   thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions. This document was
   prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.





Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
Appendix A.                 Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates

   This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
   theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as
   example media. The formula takes into account the frame size
   overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process.
   For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20
   bytes of overhead to each frame.

   Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size
   overhead created by the encapsulation on translation process, the
   maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using
   the following formula:

                Line Rate (bps)
         ------------------------------
         (8bits/byte)*(X+O+20)bytes/frame

   The calculation is based on the formula recommended by RFC5180 in
   Appendix A1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a
   6in4 implementation over 10Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is:

                10,000,000(bps)
         ------------------------------      = 12,019 fps
         (8bits/byte)*(64+20+20)bytes/frame

   The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
   can be found in the following table:

   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
   | (bytes)    | (fps)   | (fps)    | (fps)     | (fps)      |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
   | 64         | 12,019  | 120,192  | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 |
   | 128        | 7,440   | 74,405   | 744,048   | 7,440,476  |
   | 256        | 4,223   | 42,230   | 422,297   | 4,222,973  |
   | 512        | 2,264   | 22,645   | 226,449   | 2,264,493  |
   | 1024       | 1,175   | 11,748   | 117,481   | 1,174,812  |
   | 1280       | 947     | 9,470    | 94,697    | 946,970    |
   | 1518       | 802     | 8,023    | 80,231    | 802,311    |
   | 1522       | 800     | 8,003    | 80,026    | 800,256    |
   | 2048       | 599     | 5,987    | 59,866    | 598,659    |
   | 4096       | 302     | 3,022    | 30,222    | 302,224    |
   | 8192       | 152     | 1,518    | 15,185    | 151,846    |
   | 9216       | 135     | 1,350    | 13,505    | 135,048    |
   +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+





Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     October 2015
Authors' Addresses
   Marius Georgescu
   Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
   Takayama 8916-5
   Nara
   Japan

   Phone: +81 743 72 5216
   Email: liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp


   Gabor Lencse
   Szechenyi Istvan University
   Egyetem ter 1.
   Gyor
   Hungary

   Phone: +36 20 775 8267
   Email: lencse@sze.hu
































Georgescu               Expires April 15, 2016                [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/