[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 RFC 8219

Benchmarking Working Group                                 M. Georgescu
Internet Draft                                               L. Pislaru
Intended status: Informational                                  RCS&RDS
Expires: December 2017                                        G. Lencse
                                            Szechenyi Istvan University
                                                          June 12, 2017



         Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
            draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08.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 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 December 12, 2016.





Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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..............................6
   3. Terminology....................................................6
   4. Test Setup.....................................................6
      4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................7
      4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..7
   5. Test Traffic...................................................8
      5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................8
         5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................9
      5.2. Protocol Addresses........................................9
      5.3. Traffic Setup.............................................9
   6. Modifiers.....................................................10
   7. Benchmarking Tests............................................10
      7.1. Throughput...............................................11
      Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified........................11
      7.2. Latency..................................................11
      7.3. Packet Delay Variation...................................12
         7.3.1. PDV.................................................12
         7.3.2. IPDV................................................13
      7.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................14
      7.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................14
      7.6. System Recovery..........................................14
      7.7. Reset....................................................14



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
   Technologies.....................................................14
      8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................14
      8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................14
   9. DNS Resolution Performance....................................14
      9.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................14
      9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................16
         9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester.........................17
   10. Overload Scalability.........................................18
      10.1. Test Setup..............................................18
         10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies.........18
         10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition
         Technologies...............................................19
      10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation....................19
         10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load
         ...........................................................19
         10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load
         ...........................................................20
   11. NAT44 and NAT66..............................................21
   12. Summarizing function and variation...........................21
   13. Security Considerations......................................22
   14. IANA Considerations..........................................22
   15. References...................................................22
      15.1. Normative References....................................22
      15.2. Informative References..................................23
   16. Acknowledgements.............................................26
   Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................27

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.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when
   operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a
   system's ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows
   than the maximum number of flows which the Device under test (DUT)
   can operate normally. The approach taken here is to quantify the
   overload scalability by measuring the performance created by an
   excessive number of network flows, and comparing performance to the
   non-overloaded case.

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. In this context, a generic classification of the
   transition technologies can prove useful.

   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 set {4,6}, and X NOT.EQUAL Y.

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

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

   2. 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.

   3. 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 December 12, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   4. 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 de-encapsulated at the edge
      between the Core domain and Domain B.

   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.

   Table 1 contains the generic categories as well as associations with
   some of the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF.
   Please note that the list is not exhaustive.


             Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      |   | Generic category   | IPv6 Transition Technology         |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 1 | Dual-stack         | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146],  IVI [RFC6219]    |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
      | 4 | Encapsulation      | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597]   |
      |   |                    | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596]       |
      |   |                    | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE |
      |   |                    | 6VPE [RFC4659]                     |
      +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
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 document the terms are requirements for users
   and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim
   conformance with this specification.

3. Terminology

   A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
   Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and
   reporting formats.

   Throughput (Benchmark)  - [RFC2544]

   Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]

   Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201]

   Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]

   Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]



4. 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.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   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.

   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. Moreover, the "Trial description"
   recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are also valid
   for this memo.

   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
   are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing
   protocols are used..

4.1. 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

4.2. 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
   de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT
   and forwarded to the tester.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
                           +--------------------+
                           |                    |
     +---------------------|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 de-encapsulation efficiency, the
   tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY.

5. 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.

5.1. 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 recommendations of the two documents can be used 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
   theoretical frame rates. The calculation method for the Ethernet, as


Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   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.

5.1.1. 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, 768, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and
   9216.

   For Ethernet frames exceeding 1500 bytes in size, the [IEEE802.1AC]
   standard can be consulted.

   Note: for single translation transition technologies (e.g. NAT64) in
   the IPv6 -> IPv4 translation direction, 64 byte frames SHOULD be
   replaced by 84 byte frames. This would allow the frames to be
   transported over media such as the ones described by the IEEE 802.1Q
   standard. Moreover, this would also allow the implementation of a
   frame identifier in the UDP data.

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

5.2. 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
   [RFC7915] do not support the use of extension headers.

5.3. Traffic Setup

   Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
   SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional


Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   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 7 of
   this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.



   Considering that a transition technology could process both native
   IPv6 traffic and translated/encapsulated traffic, the following
   traffic setups are recommended:

   i) IPvX only traffic (where the IPvX traffic is to be
        translated/encapsulated by the DUT)
   ii)  90% IPvX traffic and 10% IPvY native traffic
   iii) 50% IPvX traffic and 50% IPvY native traffic
   iv)  10% IPvX traffic and 90% IPvY native traffic



   For the benchmarks dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition
   technologies, included in Section 8 of this memo (Concurrent TCP
   Connection Capacity and Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate),
   the traffic SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC3511], Sections
   5.2.2.2 and 5.3.2.2.



6. 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. Section 6 of
   [RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to
   IPv6. Their recommendations can also be followed for IPv6 transition
   technologies testing.

7. Benchmarking Tests

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







Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
7.1. Throughput

   Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified.

7.2. Latency

   Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the
   definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a
   new measurement procedure.

   Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of
   the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. 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 120 seconds in duration.

   Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60
   seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was
   fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was
   received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B
   minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242,
   namely latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency
   as defined for bit forwarding devices.

   We recommend to encode the identifying tag in the payload of the
   frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the
   UDP header.

   From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, 2 quantities SHOULD be
   calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated
   with the following formula:

   TL=Median(Li)

   Where: TL - the reported typical latency of the stream

   Li -the latency for tagged frame i

   The other measure is the worst case latency, which SHOULD be
   calculated with the following formula:

   WCL=L99.9thPercentile

   Where: WCL - The reported worst case latency

   L99.9thPercentile - The 99.9th Percentile of the stream measured
   latencies




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
      The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
   value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL.

   Reporting Format:  The report MUST state which definition of latency
   (from RFC 1242) was used for this test.  The summarized latency
   results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for
   each of the tested frame sizes.  There SHOULD be columns for the
   frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that
   frame size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant
   typical latency and worst case latency values for each type of data
   stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th
   percentiles of the 20 iterations MAY be reported in two separated
   columns. For a fine grained analysis, the histogram (as exemplified
   in [RFC5481] Section 4.4) of one of the iterations MAY be
   displayed .

7.3. 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 grained analysis of delay
   variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed.

7.3.1. PDV

   Objective: To determine the 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 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 [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
   times with the reported value being the median of the recorded
   values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated
   to account for the variation of the dataset.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   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. Two
   columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY  be displayed.
   Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of
   measurement are milliseconds.

7.3.2. 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:

   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, Dmed, and Dmax

   Where: Dmin - the minimum IPDV in the stream

          Dmed - the median IPDV of the stream

          Dmax - the maximum IPDV in the stream

   The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20
   repetitions, for each of the 3 (Dmin, Dmed and Dmax) the median
   value SHOULD be reported.

   Reporting format: The median for 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. Following the
   recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement
   are milliseconds.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
7.4. Frame Loss Rate

   Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified.

7.5. Back-to-back Frames

   Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified.

7.6. System Recovery

   Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified.

7.7. Reset

   Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified.

8. 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 5.2 and
   5.3)

   The following additional tests SHOULD be performed.

8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity

   Use Section 5.2 of [RFC3511] unmodified.

8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate

   Use Section 5.3 of RFC3511 unmodified.

9. DNS Resolution Performance

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

9.1. Test and Traffic Setup

   The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single
   translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1.






Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
      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
                    Figure 3. DNS64 test setup


   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)

   6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)

   The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS
   server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or
   alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used.

   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.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
     - 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.

9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance

   Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum
   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) and valid (contains an
   AAAA record) 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
   duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds. This will
   reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to
   exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus
   utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same
   reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. For
   further considerations, see [Lencse1].

   The maximum 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 median and 1st
   /99th percentiles 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 domain names, 20%,
   40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a
   record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after
   the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache
   and "early enough" to be still present 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.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%
   and 100% of 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% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED
   and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names
   are cached, then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
   domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not
   worth testing one by one.)

   Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median
   of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the
   above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be
   complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability
   of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st
   and 99th percentiles 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
   median values with the percentiles 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.

9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester

   Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per
   second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order
   to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester
   itself influences the results. For performing a self-test, the
   tester is looped back (leaving out DUT) and its authoritative DNS
   server subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA
   record queries. For passing the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able
   to answer AAAA record queries at 2*(r+delta) rate within 0.25*t
   timeout, where the value of delta is at least 0.1.

   Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query
   may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT, the first one of
   them is for an AAAA record and the second one is for an A record
   (the are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA
   record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the
   authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the
   queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of
   the timeout time.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++, is available
   from [Dns64perf] and it is documented in [Lencse2]. It implements
   only the client part of the Tester and it should be used together
   with an authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g. BIND, NSD or
   YADIFA. Its experimental extension for testing caching is available
   from [Lencse3] and it is documented in [Lencse4].

10. Overload Scalability

   Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
   network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
   yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload
   scalability as the ability of each transition technology to
   accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor
   performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured
   by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with
   an increased number of network flows.

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

10.1. Test Setup

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

10.1.1. 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 4).

                        +-------------------------+
           +------------|NF1                   NF1|<-------------+
           |  +---------|NF2      tester       NF2|<----------+  |
           |  |      ...|                         |           |  |
           |  |   +-----|NFn                   NFn|<------+   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   |                                       |   |  |
           |  |   |     +-------------------------+       |   |  |
           |  |   +---->|NFn                   NFn|-------+   |  |
           |  |      ...|           DUT           |           |  |
           |  +-------->|NF2    (translator)   NF2|-----------+  |
           +----------->|NF1                   NF1|--------------+
                        +-------------------------+
                           Figure 4. Test setup 3




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
10.1.2. 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 5).


                          +-------------------------+
     +--------------------|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 5. Test setup 4

   This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server
   device. However, for testing the overload 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 4.

10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation

10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load

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

   Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
   to be performed for one network flow.


Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
   network flows are started simultaneously. The performance
   degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as
   relative performance change between the 1-flow (single 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

   This formula SHOULD be applied only for lower is better benchmarks
   (e.g. latency).
   For higher is better benchmarks (e.g. throughput), the following
   formula is RECOMMENDED.

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


   As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be
   deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as
   described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by
   Section 4.

   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. In the case of benchmarks
   for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2),
   a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.

10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load

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

   Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
   to be performed for one network flow.

   The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
   network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after
   time t. In other words, if flow i is started at time x, flow i+1
   will be started at time x+t. Considering the time t, the time
   duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary
   to start all the flows, namely (n-1)xt. The measurement for the
   first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration.


Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   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 formula presented in
   Section 10.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 1/4*n, 1/2*n and
   3/4*n MAY also be performed.


   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 and time duration T, used
   as increment step between the network flows. The units of
   measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the intermediary
   degradation points MAY also be displayed. In the case of benchmarks
   for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2),
   a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.

11. NAT44 and NAT66

   Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this
   document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single
   translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed
   to benchmark NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior
   described by [RFC7857]) implementations and NAT66 (as defined by
   [RFC6296]) implementations.


12. Summarizing function and variation

   To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using
   the tests presented in Sections 7 through 9, multiple test
   iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure
   of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare
   the results obtained across different iterations. However, over-
   summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number.

   Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter
   the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the
   proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing
   function would fit better.

   To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as
   suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as
   variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The
   median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the
   recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   For a fine grained analysis of the frequency distribution of the
   data, histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be
   employed.

13. 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
   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.

14. IANA Considerations

   The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/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. Thus, no action is
   requested.

15. References

15.1. Normative References

   [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
             Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
             July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
             10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
             "Framework for IP performance metrics", RFC 2330, DOI
             10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc2330>.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   [RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
             Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI
             10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc2544>.

   [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
             Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI
             10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3393>.

   [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S. and T. Martin,
             "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC
             3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3511>.

   [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
             Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
             Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
             2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.

   [RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
             Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
             March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.

   [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera,
             "Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, DOI
             10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6201>.



15.2. Informative References

   [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P., and M. Holdrege. "IP Network Address
             Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC2663,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc2663>.

   [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
             for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI
             10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc4213>.

   [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
             "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
             IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/4659>.




Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   [RFC4798]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
             "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
             Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>

   [RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
             Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569,
             January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>.

   [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
             IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
             April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.

   [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
             NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
             Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
             April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
             Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
             Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
             China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
             Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
             Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI
             10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6219>.

   [RFC6296] Wasserman, M., and F. Baker. "IPv6-to-IPv6 network prefix
             translation." RFC6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011.

   [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
             Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
             Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.

   [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
             Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
             6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

   [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
             "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6890>.



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   [RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
             Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
             Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
             July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.

   [RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
             Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
             Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI
             10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7597>.

   [RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
             and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
             Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
             2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.

   [RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S.,
             and K. Naito "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT)
             Behavioral Requirements" RFC 7857, DOI 10.17487/RFC7857,
             April 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>.

   [RFC7915] LBao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
             "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI
             10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7915>.

   [Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester",
             available: https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp

   [ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6
             Transition Technologies", IETF 95, Buenos Aires,
             Argentina, April 2016, available:
             https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-bmwg-
             2.pdf

   [Lencse1] Lencse, G., Georgescu, M. and Y. Kadobayashi,
             "Benchmarking Methodology for DNS64 Servers", unpublished,
             revised version is available:
             http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-2017-B-M-
             DNS64-revised.pdf

   [Lencse2] Lencse, G., Bakai, D, "Design and Implementation of a Test
             Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE
             Transactions on Communications, vol. E100-B, no. 6.  pp.
             948-954, (June 2017), freely available from:
             http://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007

   [Lencse3] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/



Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
   [Lencse4] Lencse, G., "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the
             Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review
             version is available:
             http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEICE-2016-
             dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf

   [IEEE802.1AC-2016] IEEE Standard, "802.1AC-2016 - IEEE Standard for
             Local and metropolitan area networks -- Media Access
             Control (MAC) Service Definition", 2016, available:
             https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC-
             2016.html

16. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki
   Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should
   be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous
   support. The thank you list should also include Emanuel Popa, Ionut
   Spirlea and the RCS&RDS IP/MPLS Backbone Team for their support and
   insights. We would also like to thank Scott Bradner for the useful
   suggestions. We also note that portions of text from Scott's
   documents were used in this memo (e.g. Latency section). A big thank
   you to 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, Bela Almasi, Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich
   and Stenio Fernandes. 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 December 12, 2017               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
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  |
   | 678        | 1,740   | 17,409   | 174,094   | 1,740,947  |
   | 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 December 12, 2017               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     IPv6 transition tech benchmarking     June 2017
Authors' Addresses
   Marius Georgescu
   RCS&RDS
   Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75
   Bucharest 030167
   Romania

   Phone: +40 31 005 0979
   Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro


   Liviu Pislaru
   RCS&RDS
   Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75
   Bucharest 030167
   Romania

   Phone: +40 31 005 0979
   Email: liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro

   Gabor Lencse
   Szechenyi Istvan University
   Egyetem ter 1.
   Gyor
   Hungary

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























Georgescu             Expires December 12, 2017               [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/