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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 3918

  Network Working Group                                     Debra Stopp
  INTERNET-DRAFT                                                   Ixia
  Expires in:  August 2003                               Brooks Hickman
                                                 Spirent Communications
                                                          February 2003
  
  
                Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
                     <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-11.txt>
  
  Status of this Memo
  
     This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
     all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
  
     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force  (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
     other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
     Drafts.
  
     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
     months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
     as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
     progress."
  
     The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
     http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
  
     The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
     http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
  
  
  Copyright Notice
  
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
  
  
  Abstract
  
     The purpose of this document is to describe methodology specific to
     the benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon
     the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 2432 and other IETF
     Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This
     document seeks to extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
  
     The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
     Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
     Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related
     terms. The Methodology documents define the procedures required to
     collect the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology
     documents.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 1]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
                            Table of Contents
  
  1. INTRODUCTION...................................................3
  
  2. KEY WORDS TO REFLECT REQUIREMENTS..............................3
  
  3. TEST SET UP....................................................3
  3.1. Test Considerations..........................................5
  3.1.1.  IGMP Support..............................................5
  3.1.2.  Group Addresses...........................................5
  3.1.3.  Frame Sizes...............................................6
  3.1.4.  TTL.......................................................6
  3.1.5.  Trial Duration............................................6
  4. FORWARDING AND THROUGHPUT......................................6
  4.1. Mixed Class Throughput.......................................7
  4.2. Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix...............................8
  4.3. Aggregated Multicast Throughput..............................9
  4.4. Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput..........10
  4.4.1.  Encapsulation Throughput.................................10
  4.4.2.  Decapsulation Throughput.................................12
  4.4.3.  Re-encapsulation Throughput..............................13
  5. FORWARDING LATENCY............................................15
  5.1. Multicast Latency...........................................16
  5.2. Min/Max Multicast Latency...................................18
  6. OVERHEAD......................................................20
  6.1. Group Join Delay............................................20
  6.2. Group Leave Delay...........................................21
  7. CAPACITY......................................................23
  7.1. Multicast Group Capacity....................................23
  8. INTERACTION...................................................24
  8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency.......................24
  8.2. Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay........................25
  9. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.......................................26
  
  10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................27
  
  11. CONTRIBUTIONS................................................27
  
  12. REFERENCES...................................................28
  
  13. AUTHOR'S ADDRESSES...........................................29
  
  14. FULL COPYRIGHT STATEMENT.....................................29
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 2]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  1. Introduction
  
     This document defines tests for measuring and reporting the
     forwarding, latency and IGMP group membership characteristics of
     devices that support IP multicast routing protocols.  The results
     of these tests will provide the user with meaningful data on
     multicast performance.
  
     A previous document, " Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking"
     (RFC 2432), defined many of the terms that are used in this
     document. The terminology document should be consulted before
     attempting to make use of this document.
  
     This methodology will focus on one source to many destinations,
     although many of the tests described may be extended to use
     multiple source to multiple destination topologies.
  
  
  2. Key Words to Reflect Requirements
  
     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 RFC 2119.
     RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent
     of standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this
     document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards
     track document.
  
  
  3. Test set up
  
     The set of methodologies presented in this document are for single
     ingress, multiple egress scenarios as exemplified by Figures 1 and
     2.  Methodologies for multiple ingress and multiple egress
     scenarios are beyond the scope of this document.
  
     Figure 1 shows a typical setup for an IP multicast test, with one
     source to multiple destinations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 3]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
                            +------------+         +--------------+
                            |            |         |  destination |
          +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
          | source |        |            |         |   port(E1)   |
          |  test  |------>(|)Ingress    |         +--------------+
          |  port  |        |            |         +--------------+
          +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|  destination |
                            |            |         |    test      |
                            |            |         |   port(E2)   |
                            |    DUT     |         +--------------+
                            |            |               . . .
                            |            |         +--------------+
                            |            |         |  destination |
                            |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
                            |            |         |   port(En)   |
                            +------------+         +--------------+
  
                                 Figure 1
                                ---------
  
     If the multicast metrics are to be taken across multiple devices
     forming a System Under Test (SUT), then test frames are offered to
     a single ingress interface on a device of the SUT, subsequently
     forwarded across the SUT topology, and finally forwarded to the
     test apparatus' frame-receiving components by the test egress
     interface(s) of devices in the SUT. Figure 2 offers an example SUT
     test topology.  If a SUT is tested, the test topology and all
     relevant configuration details MUST be disclosed with the
     corresponding test results.
  
  
                 *-----------------------------------------*
                 |                                         |
     +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
     |        |  |   +------------+    |DUT B Egress E0(-)-|->|        |
     |        |  |   |DUT A       |--->|                |  |  |        |
     | Test   |  |   |            |    |      Egress E1(-)-|->| Test   |
     | App.   |--|->(-)Ingress, I |    +----------------+  |  | App.   |
     | Traffic|  |   |            |    +----------------+  |  | Traffic|
     | Src.   |  |   |            |--->|DUT C Egress E2(-)-|->| Dest.  |
     |        |  |   +------------+    |                |  |  |        |
     |        |  |                    |      Egress En(-)--|->|        |
     +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
                 |                                         |
                 *------------------SUT--------------------*
  
                                  Figure 2
                                  ---------
  
     Generally, the destination test ports first join the desired number
     of multicast groups by sending IGMP Group Report messages to the
     DUT/SUT. To verify that all destination test ports successfully
     joined the appropriate groups, the source port MUST transmit IP
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 4]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     multicast frames destined for these groups. The destination test
     ports MAY send IGMP Leave Group messages after the transmission of
     IP Multicast frames to clear the IGMP table of the DUT/SUT.
  
     In addition, test equipment MUST validate the correct and proper
     forwarding actions of the devices they test in order to ensure the
     receipt of the frames that are involved in the test.
  
  
  3.1. Test Considerations
  
     The methodology assumes a uniform medium topology. Issues regarding
     mixed transmission media, such as speed mismatch, headers
     differences, etc., are not specifically addressed. Flow control,
     QoS and other non-essential traffic or traffic-affecting mechanisms
     affecting the variable under test MUST be disabled.  Modifications
     to the collection procedures might need to be made to accommodate
     the transmission media actually tested.  These accommodations MUST
     be presented with the test results.
  
     An actual flow of test traffic may be required to prime related
     mechanisms, (e.g., process RPF events, build device caches, etc.)
     to optimally forward subsequent traffic.  Therefore, before an
     initial, measured forwarding test trial, the test apparatus MUST
     generate test traffic utilizing the same addressing characteristics
     to the DUT/SUT that will subsequently be used to measure the
     DUT/SUT response.  The test monitor should ensure the correct
     forwarding of traffic by the DUT/SUT. The priming action need only
     be repeated to keep the associated information current.
  
  
  3.1.1. IGMP Support
  
     All of the ingress and egress interfaces MAY support any version of
     IGMP.  The IGMP version on the ingress interface MUST be the same
     version of IGMP that is being tested on the egress interfaces.
  
     Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD be able to respond
     to IGMP queries during the test.
  
     Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD also send LEAVE
     (running IGMP version 2 or later) after each test.
  
  
  3.1.2. Group Addresses
  
     It is intended that the collection of benchmarks prescribed in this
     document be executed in an isolated lab environment.  That is to
     say, the test traffic offered the tested devices MUST NOT traverse
     a live internet, intranet, or other production network.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 5]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Assuming the above, there is no restriction to the use of multicast
     addresses to compose the test traffic other than those assignments
     imposed by IANA.  The IANA assignments MUST be regarded for
     operational consistency.  For multicast address assignments see:
  
           http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
  
     Address selection does not need to be restricted to
     Administratively Scoped IP Multicast addresses.
  
  
  3.1.3. Frame Sizes
  
     Each test SHOULD be run with different multicast frame sizes. For
     Ethernet, the recommended sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280,
     and 1518 byte frames.
  
     Other link layer technologies MAY be used. The minimum and maximum
     frame lengths of the link layer technology in use SHOULD be tested.
  
     When testing with different frame sizes, the DUT/SUT configuration
     MUST remain the same.
  
  
  3.1.4. TTL
  
     The data plane test traffic should have a TTL value large enough to
     traverse the DUT/SUT.
  
     The TTL in IGMP control plane messages is in compliance with the
     version of IGMP in use.
  
  
  3.1.5. Trial Duration
  
     The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least
     30 seconds.  This parameter MUST be included as part of the results
     reporting for each methodology.
  
  
  4. Forwarding and Throughput
  
  This section contains the description of the tests that are related
  to the characterization of the frame forwarding of a DUT/SUT in a
  multicast environment.  Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
  presented in RFC 1242.  Forwarding Rate is cited in RFC 2285.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 6]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  4.1. Mixed Class Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the throughput of a DUT/SUT when both unicast class
     frames and multicast class frames are offered simultaneously to a
     fixed number of interfaces as defined in RFC 2432.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Multicast and unicast traffic are mixed together in the same
     aggregated traffic stream in order to simulate the non-homogenous
     networking environment.
  
     The following events MUST occur before offering test traffic:
  
          o All DUT/SUT egress interfaces configured to receive
            multicast traffic MUST join all configured multicast
            groups;
          o The DUT/SUT MUST learn the appropriate unicast addresses;
            and
          o Group membership and unicast address learning MUST be
            verified through some externally observable method.
  
     The intended load [Ma98] SHOULD be configured as alternating
     multicast frames and unicast frames to a single ingress interface
     in a 50-50 ratio.  The unicast frames MUST be configured to
     transmit in a round-robin fashion to all of the egress interfaces.
     The multicast frames MUST be configured to transmit to all of the
     egress interfaces.
  
     Mixed class throughput measurement is defined in RFC2432 [Du98]. A
     search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the throughput for
     both unicast class and multicast class traffic in a mixed class
     environment.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o Traffic distribution for unicast and multicast traffic
            classes
          o The ratio of multicast and unicast traffic must be declared
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 7]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o Mixed Class Throughput as defined in RFC2432 [Du98],
            including: Throughput per unicast and multicast traffic
            classes.
  
     The Mixed Class Throughput results for each test SHOULD be reported
     in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame
     sizes per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row SHOULD
     specify the intended load, number of multicast frames offered,
     number of unicast frames offered and measured throughput per class.
  
  
  4.2.  Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine Forwarding Rate as a function of tested multicast
     groups for a fixed number of tested DUT/SUT ports.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     This is an iterative procedure. The destination test port(s) MUST
     join an initial number of multicast groups on the first iteration.
     All DUT/SUT destination test port(s) configured to receive
     multicast traffic MUST join all configured multicast groups.  The
     recommended number of groups to join on the first iteration is 10
     groups.  Multicast traffic is subsequently transmitted to all
     groups joined on this iteration.
  
     The number of multicast groups joined by each destination test port
     is then incremented, or scaled, by an additional number of
     multicast groups.  The recommended granularity of additional groups
     to join per iteration is 10, although the tester MAY choose a finer
     granularity.  Multicast traffic is subsequently transmitted to all
     groups joined during this iteration.
  
     The total number of multicast groups joined MUST not exceed the
     capacity of the DUT/SUT. Both Group Join Delay and Group Capacity
     results MUST be known prior to running this test.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 8]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The total number of multicast groups joined for that
            iteration
          o Total number of frames transmitted
          o Total number of frames received
          o Offered load
          o Forwarding rate determined for that iteration
  
     The Scaled Group Forwarding results for each test SHOULD be
     reported in the form of a table with a row representing each
     iteration of the test.  Each row or iteration SHOULD specify the
     total number of groups joined for that iteration, total number of
     frames transmitted, total number of frames received and the
     aggregate forwarding rate determined for that iteration.
  
  
  4.3. Aggregated Multicast Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames
     to be forwarded through N destination interfaces of the same
     multicast groups are dropped.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Offer multicast traffic at an initial fixed offered load to a fixed
     set of interfaces with a fixed number of groups at a fixed frame
     length for a fixed duration of time.  All destination test ports
     MUST join all specified multicast groups.
  
     If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and
     the sender will transmit again.  An iterative search algorithm MUST
     be utilized to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero
     frame loss.
  
     Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the
     multicast traffic, while keeping the set of interfaces, number of
     multicast groups, frame length and test duration fixed, until the
     maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is
     determined.
  
     Parameters to be measured MUST include the offered load at which no
     frame loss occurred.
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                            [Page 9]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o Aggregated Multicast Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
  
     The Aggregated Multicast Throughput results SHOULD be reported in
     the format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
     per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify offered load, total number of offered frames and the
     measured Aggregated Multicast Throughput.
  
  
  4.4. Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput
  
     This sub-section provides the description of tests that help in
     obtaining throughput measurements when a DUT/SUT or a set of DUTs
     are acting as tunnel endpoints.
  
  
  
  4.4.1. Encapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one
     ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are encapsulated and correctly
     forwarded on one or more egress interfaces of the DUT/SUT without
     loss.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 10]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Procedure:
  
             Source              DUT/SUT                Destination
            Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
           +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |------->|Ingress    |             |         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
           |         |        |           |             |         |
           +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
  
                                 Figure 3
                                 ---------
  
     Figure 3 shows the setup for testing the encapsulation throughput
     of the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between each
     egress interface of the DUT/SUT and a destination test port.  Non-
     Encapsulated multicast traffic will then be offered by the source
     test port, encapsulated by the DUT/SUT and forwarded to the
     destination test port(s).
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across each
     egress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  In
     addition, it is RECOMMENDED to test with the same number of tunnels
     on each egress interface.  All destination test ports MUST join all
     multicast group addresses offered by the source test port.  Each
     egress interface MUST be configured with the same MTU.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the encapsulation
     throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 11]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o Measured Encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Encapsulated frame size
          o Originating un-encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
  
     The Encapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the form
     of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows for each
     originating un-encapsulated frame size.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify the offered load, encapsulation method, encapsulated
     frame size, total number of offered frames, and the encapsulation
     throughput.
  
  
  4.4.2. Decapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one
     ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are decapsulated and correctly
     forwarded by the DUT/SUT on one or more egress interfaces without
     loss.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
             Source                  DUT/SUT            Destination
            Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
           +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |--(Tunnel)-->|Ingress    |        |         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
           |         |             |           |        |         |
           +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
  
                                     Figure 4
                                     ---------
  
     Figure 4 shows the setup for testing the decapsulation throughput
     of the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between the source
     test port and the DUT/SUT.  Encapsulated multicast traffic will
     then be offered by the source test port, decapsulated by the
     DUT/SUT and forwarded to the destination test port(s).
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 12]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across each
     egress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  All
     destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
     offered by the source test port.  Each egress interface MUST
     be configured with the same MTU.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the decapsulation
     throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o Measured Decapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Originating encapsulation format
          o Decapsulated frame size
          o Originating encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
  
     The Decapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
     format of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows
     for each originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the offered load, decapsulated frame size,
     total number of offered frames and the decapsulation throughput.
  
  
  4.4.3. Re-encapsulation Throughput
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum rate at which frames of one encapsulated
     format offered to one ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are converted
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 13]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     to another encapsulated format and correctly forwarded by the
     DUT/SUT to one or more egress interfaces without loss.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
              Source                DUT/SUT             Destination
             Test Port                                  Test Port(s)
            +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |-(Tunnel)->|Ingress  |           |         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
            |         |           |         |           |         |
            +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
  
                                   Figure 5
                                   ---------
  
     Figure 5 shows the setup for testing the Re-encapsulation
     throughput of the DUT/SUT.  The source test port will offer
     encapsulated traffic of one type to the DUT/SUT, which has been
     configured to re-encapsulate the offered frames using a different
     encapsulation format. The DUT/SUT will then forward the re-
     encapsulated frames to the destination test port(s).
  
     The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across each
     egress interface will consist of either:
  
          a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
            groups OR
          b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
            address groups.
  
     The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
     DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.
  
     In addition, the DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the number
     of tunnels on the ingress and each egress interface are the same.
     All destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
     offered by the source test port. Each egress interface MUST be
     configured with the same MTU.
  
     A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the re-
     encapsulation throughput as defined in [Du98].
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 14]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
          o MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o Measured Re-encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC2432
            [Du98]
          o Originating encapsulation format
          o Decapsulated frame size
          o Originating encapsulated frame size
          o Number of tunnels
          o Number of multicast groups per tunnel
  
     The Decapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
     format of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows
     for each originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the offered load, decapsulated frame size,
     total number of offered frames and the decapsulation throughput
  
  
  5. Forwarding Latency
  
     This section presents methodologies relating to the
     characterization of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT in a
     multicast environment. It extends the concept of latency
     characterization presented in RFC 2544.
  
     To lessen the effect of frame buffering in the DUT/SUT, the latency
     tests MUST be run at the measured multicast throughput level of the
     DUT; multicast latency at other offered loads is optional.
  
     Lastly, RFC 1242 and RFC 2544 draw a distinction between device
     types: "store and forward" and "bit-forwarding." Each type impacts
     how latency is collected and subsequently presented. See the
     related RFCs for more information.  In practice, much of the test
     equipment will collect the latency measurement for one type or the
     other, and, if needed, mathematically derive the reported value by
     the addition or subtraction of values accounting for medium
     propagation delay of the frame, bit times to the timestamp trigger
     within the frame, etc.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 15]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  5.1. Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single,
     multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple, egress
     multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
     metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432.
  
     The Procedures highlighted below attempt to draw from the
     collection methodology for latency in RFC 2544 to the degree
     possible.  The methodology addresses two topological scenarios: one
     for a single device (DUT) characterization; a second scenario is
     presented or multiple device (SUT) characterization.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     If the test trial is to characterize latency across a single Device
     Under Test (DUT), an example test topology might take the form of
     Figure 1 in section 3.  That is, a single DUT with one ingress
     interface receiving the multicast test traffic from frame-
     transmitting component of the test apparatus and n egress
     interfaces on the same DUT forwarding the multicast test traffic
     back to the frame-receiving component of the test apparatus.  Note
     that n reflects the number of TESTED egress interfaces on the DUT
     actually expected to forward the test traffic (as opposed to
     configured but untested, non-forwarding interfaces, for example).
  
     If the multicast latencies are to be taken across multiple devices
     forming a System Under Test (SUT), an example test topology might
     take the form of Figure 2 in section 3.
  
     The trial duration SHOULD be 120 seconds to be consistent with RFC
     2544.  The nature of the latency measurement, "store and forward"
     or "bit forwarding," MUST be associated with the related test
     trial(s) and disclosed in the results report.
  
     End-to-end reachability of the test traffic path MUST be verified
     prior to the engagement of a test trial.  This implies that
     subsequent measurements are intended to characterize the latency
     across the tested device's or devices' normal traffic forwarding
     path (e.g., faster hardware-based engines) of the device(s) as
     opposed a non-standard traffic processing path (e.g. slower,
     software-based exception handlers).  If the test trial is to be
     executed with the intent of characterizing a non-optimal,
     forwarding condition, then a description of the exception
     processing conditions being characterized MUST be included with the
     trial's results.
  
     A test traffic stream is presented to the DUT. It is RECOMMENDED to
     offer traffic at the measured aggregated multicast throughput rate
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 16]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     (Section 4.3).  At the mid-point of the trial's duration, the test
     apparatus MUST inject a uniquely identifiable ("tagged") frame into
     the test traffic frames being presented.  This tagged frame will be
     the basis for the latency measurements. By "uniquely identifiable,"
     it is meant that the test apparatus MUST be able to discern the
     "tagged" frame from the other frames comprising the test traffic
     set.  A frame generation timestamp, Timestamp A, reflecting the
     completion of the transmission of the tagged frame by the test
     apparatus, MUST be determined.
  
     The test apparatus then monitors frames from the DUT's tested
     egress interface(s) for the expected tagged frame(s) until the
     cessation of traffic generation at the end of the configured trial
     duration.
  
     The test apparatus MUST record the time of the successful detection
     of a tagged frame from a tested egress interface with a timestamp,
     Timestamp B.  A set of Timestamp B values MUST be collected for all
     tested egress interfaces of the DUT/SUT.  See RFC 1242 [Br91] for
     additional discussion regarding store and forward devices and bit
     forwarding devices.
  
     A trial MUST be considered INVALID should any of the following
     conditions occur in the collection of the trial data:
  
          o Forwarded test frames directed to improper destinations.
          o Unexpected differences between Intended Load and Offered
            Load or unexpected differences between Offered Load and the
            resulting Forwarding Rate(s) on the DUT/SUT egress ports.
          o Forwarded test frames improperly formed or frame header
            fields improperly manipulated.
          o Failure to forward required tagged frame(s) on all expected
            egress interfaces.
          o Reception of a tagged frame by the test apparatus outside
            the configured test duration interval or 5 seconds,
            whichever is greater.
  
     Data from invalid trials SHOULD be considered inconclusive.  Data
     from invalid trials MUST not form the basis of comparison.
  
     The set of latency measurements, M, composed from each latency
     measurement taken from every ingress/tested egress interface
     pairing MUST be determined from a valid test trial:
  
           M = { (Timestamp B(E0) - Timestamp A),
                 (Timestamp B(E1) - Timestamp A), ...
                 (Timestamp B(En) - Timestamp A) }
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 17]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     where (E0 ... En) represents the range of all tested egress
     interfaces and Timestamp B represents a tagged frame detection
     event for a given DUT/SUT tested egress interface.
  
     A more continuous profile MAY be built from a series of individual
     measurements.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and
            with sufficient precision for the medium or media being
            tested.
          o Specifically, when reporting the results of a valid test
            trial, the set of all latencies related to the tested
            ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT interface of MUST be
            presented.
  
     The latency results for each test SHOULD be reported in the form of
     a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per the
     recommended frame sizes in section 3.1.3, and SHOULD preserve the
     relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface(s) to assist in
     trending across multiple trials.
  
  
  5.2. Min/Max Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the difference between the maximum latency measurement
     and the minimum latency measurement from a collected set of
     latencies produced by the Multicast Latency benchmark.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Collect a set of multicast latency measurements over a single test
     duration, as prescribed in section 5.1. This will produce a set of
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 18]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     multicast latencies, M, where M is composed of individual
     forwarding latencies between DUT frame ingress and DUT frame egress
     port pairs. E.g.:
  
                     M = {L(I,E1),L(I,E2), ..., L(I,En)}
  
     where L is the latency between a tested ingress interface, I, of
     the DUT, and Ex a specific, tested multicast egress interface of
     the DUT.  E1 through En are unique egress interfaces on the DUT.
  
     From the collected multicast latency measurements in set M,
     identify MAX(M), where MAX is a function that yields the largest
     latency value from set M.
  
     Identify MIN(M), when MIN is a function that yields the smallest
     latency value from set M.
  
     The Max/Min value is determined from the following formula:
  
                          Result = MAX(M) - MIN(M)
  
     A more continuous profile MAY be built from a series of individual
     measurements.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The result of the min/max value represented as a single
            numerical value in time units consistent with the
            corresponding latency measurements.
          o Specifically, when reporting the results of a valid test
            trial, the set of all latencies related to the tested
            ingress interface MUST be reported.
  
     The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
     sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.  The
     latency results for each test SHOULD be reported in the form of a
     table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per the
     recommendations in section 3.1.3, and SHOULD preserve the
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 19]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface(s) to assist in
     trending across multiple trials.
  
  
  6. Overhead
  
     This section presents methodology relating to the characterization
     of the overhead delays associated with explicit operations found in
     multicast environments.
  
  
  6.1. Group Join Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start
     forwarding multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP group
     membership report has been issued to the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Prior to sending any IGMP Group Membership Reports used to
     calculate the group join delay, it MUST be verified through
     externally observable means that the destination test ports are not
     currently a member of any of the specified multicast groups.  If
     any of the egress interfaces forward multicast frames, the test is
     not valid.
  
     Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for all relevant
     multicast group addresses MUST be offered to the ingress interface
     prior to receipt or processing of any IGMP Group Membership Report
     messages.  It is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured
     aggregated multicast throughput rate (Section 4.3).
  
     After the multicast traffic has been started, each destination test
     port (See Figure 1) SHOULD send one IGMP Group Membership Report
     with one or more (IGMP V3) multicast group(s) specified.  All
     destination test ports MUST join all multicast groups offered on
     the ingress interface of the DUT/SUT.  The test MUST be performed
     with one multicast group and SHOULD be performed with multiple
     groups.
  
     The join delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Group
     Membership message is sent (timestamp A) and the first frame of the
     multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
     (timestamp B).
  
              Group Join delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
  
     Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP group
     membership report is sent from the destination test port; timestamp
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 20]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     B MUST be the time the first bit of the first valid multicast frame
     is forwarded on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The group join delay time per multicast group address
          o The group join delay time per egress interface(s)
  
     The Group Join Delay results for each test SHOULD be reported in
     the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
     per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify the group join delay time for each multicast group
     per destination interface, number of frames transmitted and number
     of frames received for that iteration.
  
  
  6.2. Group Leave Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to cease
     forwarding multicast frames after a corresponding IGMP Leave Group
     message has been successfully offered to the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     Prior to sending any IGMP Group Leave Group messages used to
     calculate the group leave delay, it MUST be verified through
     externally observable means that the destination test ports are
     currently a member of all the specified multicast groups.  If any
     of the destination test ports do not receive multicast frames, the
     test is not valid.
  
     Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for all relevant
     multicast group addresses MUST be offered to the ingress interface
     prior to receipt or processing of any IGMP Leave Group messages.
     It is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured aggregated
     multicast throughput rate (Section 4.3).
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 21]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
     After the multicast traffic has been started, each destination test
     port (See Figure 1) MUST send one IGMP Leave Group message for each
     multicast group specified.  All destination test ports MUST leave
     all relevant multicast groups offered on the ingress interface of
     the DUT/SUT.  The test MUST be performed with one multicast group
     and SHOULD be performed with multiple groups.
  
     The leave delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Leave
     Group message is sent (timestamp A) and the last frame of the
     multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
     (timestamp B).
  
             Group Leave delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
  
     Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP Leave Group
     message is sent from the destination test port; timestamp B MUST be
     the time the last bit of the last valid multicast frame is
     forwarded on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The group leave delay time per multicast group address
          o The group leave delay time per egress interface(s)
  
     The Group Leave Delay results for each test SHOULD be reported in
     the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
     per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify the group leave delay time for each multicast group
     per destination interface, number of frames transmitted and number
     of frames received for that iteration.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 22]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  7. Capacity
  
     This section offers terms relating to the identification of
     multicast group limits of a DUT/SUT.
  
  7.1. Multicast Group Capacity
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the maximum number of multicast groups a DUT/SUT can
     support while maintaining the ability to forward multicast frames
     to all multicast groups registered to that DUT/SUT.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     One or more egress interfaces of DUT/SUT will join an initial
     number of multicast groups.
  
     After a delay as determined by section 6.1, the ingress interface
     MUST transmit to each group at a specified offered load.
  
     If at least one frame for each multicast group is forwarded
     properly by the DUT/SUT to each participating egress interface, the
     iteration is said to pass at the current capacity.
  
     If the iteration passes, the test will add a user defined
     incremental value of groups to each egress interface. At the new
     group level and resultant capacity as stated above, run the
     iteration again.
  
     Once the test fails, the last/previous iteration capacity that
     passed is the stated Maximum Group Capacity result.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the
     results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Offered load
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The total number of multicast group addresses that were
            successfully forwarded through the DUT/SUT
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 23]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     The Multicast Group Capacity results for each test SHOULD be
     reported in the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested
     frame sizes per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or
     iteration SHOULD specify the number of multicast groups joined per
     destination interface, number of frames transmitted and number of
     frames received for that iteration.
  
  
  8. Interaction
  
     Network forwarding devices are generally required to provide more
     functionality than just the forwarding of traffic.  Moreover,
     network-forwarding devices may be asked to provide those functions
     in a variety of environments.  This section offers procedures to
     assist in the characterization of DUT/SUT behavior in consideration
     of potentially interacting factors.
  
  
  8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency
  
     Objective:
  
     To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single
     multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple egress
     multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
     metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432 while under the influence of
     a traffic forwarding requirement.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     The Multicast Latency metrics can be influenced by forcing the
     DUT/SUT to perform extra processing of packets while multicast
     class traffic is being forwarded for latency measurements.
  
     The Burdened Forwarding Latency test MUST follow the described
     setup in Section 5.1.
  
     Perform a baseline measurement of latency as described in Section
     5.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, the test is
     repeated with the ingress interface offering an additional set of
     user specified multicast group addresses which have not been joined
     by the destination test port(s).  The offered load MUST be the same
     as was used in the baseline measurement.
  
     By sending such multicast class traffic, the DUT/SUT may perform a
     lookup on the frames that may affect the processing of traffic
     destined for the egress interface(s).
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 24]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     Similar to Section 5.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
     be reflected in the results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups in the baseline setup
          o Total number of additional multicast groups used to burden
            the setup
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and
            with sufficient precision for the medium or media being
            tested
          o Specifically, when reporting the results of a valid test
            trial, the set of all latencies related to the tested
            ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT interface of MUST be
            presented
          o Reported results from baseline measurement; section 5.1
  
     The latency results for each test SHOULD be reported in the form of
     a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per the
     recommended frame sizes in section 3.1.3, and SHOULD preserve the
     relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface(s) to assist in
     trending across multiple trials.
  
  
  8.2. Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay
  
     Objective:
  
     To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start
     forwarding multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP Group
     Membership Report has been issued to the DUT/SUT while under the
     influence of a traffic forwarding requirement.
  
  
     Procedure:
  
     The Group Join Delay metrics can be influenced by forcing the
     DUT/SUT to perform extra process of packets while attempting to
     update and maintain the IP multicast address forwarding table.
  
     The Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay test MUST follow the
     described setup in Section 6.1.
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 25]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
     Perform a baseline measurement of group join delay as described in
     Section 6.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, the test
     is repeated with the ingress interface offering an additional set
     of user specified multicast group address which have not been
     joined by the destination test port(s).  The offered load MUST be
     the same as was used in the baseline measurement.
  
     By sending such multicast class traffic, the DUT/SUT may perform a
     lookup on the frames that may affect the processing of the IGMP
     Group Report messages.
  
  
     Reporting Format:
  
     Similar to Section 6.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
     be reflected in the results specific to this methodology:
  
          o Frame size(s)
          o Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
          o Test duration
          o IGMP version
          o Total number of multicast groups in the baseline setup
          o Total number of additional multicast groups used to burden
            the setup
  
     The following results MUST be reflected in the results specific to
     this methodology:
  
          o The group join delay time per multicast group address
          o The group join delay time per egress interface(s)
          o Reported results from baseline measurement; section 6.1
  
     The Group Join Delay results for each test SHOULD be reported in
     the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
     per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
     SHOULD specify the group join delay time for each multicast group
     per destination interface, number of frames transmitted and number
     of frames received for that iteration.
  
  
  9. Security Considerations
  
     As this document is solely for the purpose of providing metric
     methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
     implementation, there are no security considerations associated
     with this document.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 26]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  10. Acknowledgements
  
     The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF and
     particularly Kevin Dubray, Juniper Networks, are to be thanked for
     the many suggestions they collectively made to help complete this
     document.
  
  
  11. Contributions
  
     The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
     their help and participation of the compilation of this document:
     Hardev Soor, Ixia, and Ralph Daniels, Spirent Communications, both
     who made significant contributions to the earlier versions of this
     document.  In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the
     members of the task team who helped bring this document to
     fruition: Michele Bustos, Tony De La Rosa, David Newman and Jerry
     Perser.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 27]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  12. References
  
  Normative References
  
  [Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
         Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
  
  [Br96] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
         Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
  
  [Br97] Bradner, S. "Use of Keywords in RFCs to Reflect Requirement
         Levels, RFC 2119, March 1997
  
  [Du98] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC
         2432, October 1998.
  
  [Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
         Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
  
  
  Informative References
  
  [Ca02] Cain, B., et al., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
         3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
  
  [De89] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC
         1112, August 1989.
  
  [Fe97] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2",
         RFC 2236, November 1997.
  
  [Hu95] Huitema, C.  "Routing in the Internet." Prentice-Hall, 1995.
  
  [Ka98] Kosiur, D., "IP Multicasting: the Complete Guide to
         Interactive Corporate Networks", John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1998.
  
  [Mt98] Maufer, T.  "Deploying IP Multicast in the Enterprise."
         Prentice-Hall, 1998.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 28]


  INTERNET-DRAFT   Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Aug. 2003
  
  
  
  13. Author's Addresses
  
     Debra Stopp
     Ixia
     26601 W. Agoura Rd.
     Calabasas, CA  91302
     USA
  
     Phone: + 1 818 871 1800
     EMail: debby@ixiacom.com
  
  
     Brooks Hickman
     Spirent Communications
     26750 Agoura Rd.
     Calabasas, CA  91302
     USA
  
     Phone: + 1 818 676 2412
     EMail: brooks.hickman@spirentcom.com
  
  
  
  14. Full Copyright Statement
  
     "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
     This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
     others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
     it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
     published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
     of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
     paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
     However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such
     as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
     Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the
     purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
     procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process
     must be followed, or as required to translate it into.รถ
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Stopp & Hickman                                           [Page 29]
  

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