[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 6894

Network Working Group                                     Rajiv Papneja
Internet Draft                                                  Isocore
Intended Status: Informational                               S.Vapiwala
Expires: April 2, 2009                                       J. Karthik
                                                          Cisco Systems
                                                            S. Poretsky
                                                                  Allot
                                                                 S. Rao
                                                   Qwest Communications
                                                     Jean-Louis Le Roux
                                                         France Telecom
                                                       November 3, 2008



          Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS Protection Mechanisms
                  draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2009.

Abstract





Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   This  draft  describes  the  methodology  for  benchmarking  MPLS
   Protection mechanisms for link and node protection as defined in
   [MPLS-FRR-EXT]. This document provides test methodologies and test
   bed  setup  for  measuring  failover  times  while  considering  all
   dependencies that might impact faster recovery of real-time services
   bound to MPLS based traffic engineered tunnels.

   The terms used in the procedures included in this document are
   defined in [TERM-ID].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Document Scope.................................................4
   3. General reference sample topology..............................5
   4. Existing definitions...........................................5
   5. Test Considerations............................................6
   5.1. Failover Events..............................................6
   5.2. Failure Detection [TERM-ID]..................................7
   5.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection benchmarking.........7
   5.4. LSP and Route Scaling........................................8
   5.5. Selection of IGP.............................................8
   5.6. Reversion [TERM-ID]..........................................8
   5.7. Traffic Generation...........................................8
   5.8. Motivation for Topologies....................................9
   6. Reference Test Setup...........................................9
   6.1. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................10
   6.2. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................11
   6.3. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................11
   6.4. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................12
   6.5. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................12
   6.6. Node Protection with 2 hop primar (from PLR) and 2 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................13
   6.7. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................14
   6.8. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup
   TE tunnels.......................................................15
   7. Test Methodology..............................................15
   7.1. Headend as PLR with link failure............................15
   7.2. Mid-Point as PLR with link failure..........................17
   7.3. Headend as PLR with Node Failure............................18


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   7.4. Mid-Point as PLR with Node failure..........................19
   7.5. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Test cases..................21
   7.5.1. PLR as Headend............................................21
   7.5.2. PLR as Mid-point..........................................22
   8. Reporting Format..............................................23
   Benchmarks.......................................................24
   9. Security Considerations.......................................25
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................25
   11. References...................................................25
   11.1. Normative References.......................................25
   11.2. Informative References.....................................25
   Author's Addresses...............................................26
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................27
   Disclaimer of Validity...........................................28
   Copyright Statement..............................................28
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................28
   Appendix A: Fast Reroute Scalability Table.......................28
   Appendix B: Abbreviations........................................31

1. Introduction

   This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS based
   protection  mechanisms.  The  new  terminology  that  this  document
   introduces is defined in [TERM-ID].

   MPLS based protection mechanisms provide fast recovery of real-time
   services from a planned or an unplanned link or node failures. MPLS
   protection  mechanisms  are  generally  deployed  in  a  network
   infrastructure, where MPLS is used for provisioning of point-to-
   point traffic engineered tunnels (tunnel). MPLS based protection
   mechanisms  promises  to  improve  service  disruption  period  by
   minimizing recovery time from most common failures.

   Generally there two factors impacting service availability - one is
   frequency of failures, and other being duration for which the
   failures last. Failures can be classified further into two types-                                                                       -
   correlated uncorrelated failures. A Correlated failure is the co-
   occurrence of two or more failures simultaneously. A typical example
   would be a failure of logical resource (e.g. layer-2 links), relying
   on a common physical resource (e.g. common interface) fails. Within
   the context of MPLS protection mechanisms, failures that arise due
   to Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) [MPLS-FRR-EXT] can be considered
   as  correlations  failures  or.  Not  all  correlated  failures  are



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   predictable in advance especially the ones caused due to natural
   disasters.

   Planned  failures  on  the  other  hand  are  predictable  and
   implementations should handle both types of failures and recover
   gracefully within the time frame acceptable for service assurance.
   Hence, failover recovery time is one of the most important benchmark
   that a service provider considers in choosing the building blocks
   for their network infrastructure.

   It is a known fact that network elements from different manufactures
   behave differently to network failures, which impact their ability
   to recover from the failures. It becomes imperative from network
   service  providers  to  have  a  common  benchmark,  which  could  be
   followed  to  understand  the  performance  behaviors  of  network
   elements.

   Considering  failover  recovery  an  important  parameter,  the  test
   methodology presented in this document considers the factors that
   may impact the failover times. To benchmark the failover times, data
   plane traffic is used as defined in [IGP-METH].

   All benchmarking test cases defined in this document apply to both
   facility backup and local protection enabled in detour mode. The
   test cases cover all possible failure scenarios and the associated
   procedures benchmark the ability of the DUT to perform recovery from
   failures within target failover time.



2. Document Scope

   This document provides detailed test cases along with different
   topologies and scenarios that should be considered to effectively
   benchmark MPLS protection mechanisms and failover times. Different
   failure scenarios and scaling considerations are also provided in
   this document, in addition to reporting formats for the observed
   results.

   Benchmarking of unexpected correlated failures is currently out of
   scope of this document.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

3. General reference sample topology

   Figure 1 illustrates the basic reference testbed and is applicable
   to all the test cases defined in this document. TG & TA represents
   Traffic Generator & Analyzer respectively. A tester is connected to
   the DUT and it sends and receives IP traffic along with the working
   Path,  run  protocol  emulations  simulating  real  world  peering
   scenarios. The reference testbed shown in the figure


              ---------------------------
            |               ------------|---------------
            |              |            |               |
            |              |            |               |
        --------       --------      --------      --------     --------
    TG-|   R1   |-----|   R2   |----|   R3   |    |    R4  |   |  R5    |-TA
       |        |-----|        |----|        |----|        |---|        |
        --------       --------      --------      --------     --------
              |            |              |           |
              |            |              |           |
              |          --------         |           |
               ---------|   R6   |--------            |
                        |        |--------------------
                         --------


                       Fig.1: Fast Reroute Topology.

   The tester MUST record the number of lost, duplicate, and reordered
   packets. It should further record arrival and departure times so
   that failover Time, Additive Latency, and Reversion Time can be
   measured.  The tester may be a single device or a test system
   emulating all the different roles along a primary or backup path.


4. Existing definitions

   For the sake of clarity and continuity this RFC adopts the template
   for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242.  Definitions are
   indexed and grouped together in sections for ease of reference. The
   terms used in this document are defined in detail in [TERM-ID].





Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document is to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

   The reader is assumed to be familiar with the commonly used MPLS
   terminology, some of which is defined in [MPLS-FRR-EXT].


5. Test Considerations

   This section discusses the fundamentals of MPLS Protection testing:

       -The types of network events that causes failover
       -Indications for failover
       -the use of data traffic
       -Traffic generation
       -LSP Scaling
       -Reversion of LSP
       -IGP Selection


5.1. Failover Events [TERM ID]

   The failover to the backup tunnel is primarily triggered by either
   link or node failures observed downstream of the Point of Local
   repair (PLR). Some of these failure events are listed below.

   Link failure events

       - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with POS Alarm
       - Interface Shutdown on remote side with POS Alarm
       - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with RSVP hello enabled
       - Interface Shutdown on remote side with RSVP hello enabled
       - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with BFD
       - Interface Shutdown on remote side with BFD
       - Fiber Pull on the PLR side (Both TX & RX or just the TX)
       - Fiber Pull on the remote side (Both TX & RX or just the RX)
       - Online insertion and removal (OIR) on PLR side
       - OIR on remote side
       - Sub-interface failure (e.g. shutting down of a VLAN)
      - Parent interface shutdown (an interface bearing multiple sub-
     interfaces


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



   Node failure events

   A System reload is initiated either by a graceful shutdown or by a
   power failure. A system crash is referred to as a software failure
   or an assert.

       - Reload protected Node, when RSVP hello is enabled
       - Crash Protected Node, when RSVP hello is enabled
       - Reload Protected Node, when BFD is enable
       - Crash Protected Node, when BFD is enable


5.2. Failure Detection [TERM-ID]

   Link failure detection time depends on the link type and failure
   detection protocols running.  For SONET/SDH, the alarm type (such as
   LOS, AIS, or RDI) can be used.  Other link types have layer-two
   alarms, but they may not provide a short enough failure detection
   time. Ethernet based links do not have layer 2 failure indicators,
   and therefore relies on layer 3 signaling for failure detection.

   MPLS has different failure detection techniques such as BFD, or use
   of RSVP hellos.  These methods can be used for the layer 3 failure
   indicators required by Ethernet based links, or for some other non-
   Ethernet based links to help improve failure detection time.

   The test procedures in this document can be used for a local failure
   or remote failure scenarios for comprehensive benchmarking and to
   evaluate failover performance independent of the failure detection
   techniques.

5.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection benchmarking

   Currently end customers use packet loss as a key metric for failover
   time. Packet loss is an externally observable event and has direct
   impact on customers' applications.  MPLS protection mechanism is
   expected to minimize the packet loss in the event of a failure. For
   this  reason  it  is  important  to  develop  a  standard  router
   benchmarking methodology for measuring MPLS protection that uses
   packet loss as a metric.  At a known rate of forwarding, packet loss
   can be measured and the failover time can be determined. Measurement
   of control plane signaling to establish backup paths is not enough



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   to verify failover. Failover is best determined when packets are
   actually traversing the backup path.

   An additional benefit of using packet loss for calculation of
   failover  time  is  that  it  allows  use  of  a  black-box  tests
   environment. Data traffic is offered at line-rate to the device
   under test (DUT), and an emulated network failure event is forced to
   occur, and packet loss is externally measured to calculate the
   convergence time. This setup is independent of the DUT architecture.

   In addition, this methodology considers the packets in error and
   duplicate packets that could have been generated during the failover
   process. In scenarios, where separate measurement of packets in
   error and duplicate packets is difficult to obtain, these packets
   should be attributed to lost packets.

5.4. LSP and Route Scaling

   Failover time performance may vary with the number of established
   primary and backup tunnel label switched paths (LSP) and installed
   routes. However the procedure outlined here should be used for any
   number of LSPs (L) and number of routes protected by PLR(R). Number
   of L and R must be recorded.

5.5. Selection of IGP

   The underlying IGP could be ISIS-TE or OSPF-TE for the methodology
   proposed here.

5.6. Reversion [TERM-ID]

   Fast Reroute provides a method to return or restore a backup path to
   original primary LSP upon recovery from the failure. This is
   referred to as Reversion, which can be implemented as Global
   Reversion or Local Reversion. In all test cases listed here
   Reversion should not produce any packet loss, out of order or
   duplicate packets. Each of the test cases in this methodology
   document provides a check to confirm that there is no packet loss.

5.7. Traffic Generation

   It is suggested that there be one or more traffic streams as long as
   there is a steady and constant rate of flow for all the streams.  In
   order to monitor the DUT performance for recovery times a set of
   route prefixes should be advertised before traffic is sent. The
   traffic should be configured towards these routes.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   A typical example would be configuring the traffic generator to send
   the traffic to the first, middle and last of the advertised routes.
   (First,  middle  and  last  could  be  decided  by  the  numerically
   smallest, median and the largest respectively of the advertised
   prefix). Generating traffic to all of the prefixes reachable by the
   protected tunnel (probably in a Round-Robin fashion, where the
   traffic is destined to all the prefixes but one prefix at a time in
   a  cyclic  manner)  is  not  recommended.  The  reason  why  traffic
   generation is not recommended in a Round-Robin fashion to all the
   prefixes, one at a time is that if there are many prefixes reachable
   through the LSP the time interval between 2 packets destined to one
   prefix may be significantly high and may be comparable with the
   failover time being measured which does not aid in getting an
   accurate failover measurement.

5.8. Motivation for Topologies

   Given that the label stack is dependent of the following 3 entities
   it  is  recommended  that  the  benchmarking  of  failover  time  be
   performed on all the 8 topologies provided in section 4

       - Type of protection (Link Vs Node)

       - # of remaining hops of the primary tunnel from the PLR

       - # of remaining hops of the backup tunnel from the PLR



6. Reference Test Setup

   In addition to the general reference topology shown in figure 1,
   this section provides detailed insight into various proposed test
   setups that should be considered for comprehensively benchmarking
   the failover time in different roles along the primary tunnel:

   This section proposes a set of topologies that covers all the
   scenarios for local protection. All of these 8 topologies shown
   (figure 2- figure 9) can be mapped to the reference topology shown
   in figure 1. Topologies provided in sections 4.1 to 4.8 refer to
   test-bed required to benchmark failover time when DUT is configured
   as a PLR in either headend or midpoint role. The labels stack
   provided with each topology is at the PLR.

   The label stacks shown below each figure in section 4.1 to 4.9
   considers enabling of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP).



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                   [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   Figures 2-9 uses the following convention:

   a) HE is Headend

   b) TE is Tail-End

   c) MID is Mid point

   d) MP is Merge Point

   e) PLR is Point of Local Repair

   f) PRI is Primary

   g) BKP denotes Backup Node



6.1. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels

             -------    -------- PRI  --------
            |  R1   |  |   R2   |    |   R3   |
         TG-|  HE   |--|  MID   |----|    TE  |-TA
            |       |  |  PLR   |----|        |
             -------    -------- BKP  --------

          Figure 2: Represents the setup for section 4.1

       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels after
                          before failure    failure
       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)             0             0
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     1             1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      2             2
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      1             1
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       2             2
       Mid-point LSPs         0             0










Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



6.2. Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
   tunnels

           -------      --------      --------
          |  R1   |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |
       TG-|  HE   |    |  MID   |PRI |   TE   |-TA
          |       |----|  PLR   |----|        |
           -------      --------      --------
                           |BKP               |
                           |     --------     |
                           |    |   R6   |    |
                           |----|  BKP   |----|
                                |   MID  |
                                 --------
         Figure 3: Representing setup for section 4.2


       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure
       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       0              1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     1              2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      2              3
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      1              2
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       2              3
       Mid-point LSPs         0              1


6.3. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels

           --------      --------      --------        --------
          |  R1    |    | R2     |PRI |   R3   |PRI   |   R4   |
       TG-|  HE    |----| MID    |----| MID    |------|   TE   |-TA
          |        |    | PLR    |----|        |      |        |
           --------      -------- BKP  --------        --------
         Figure 4: Representing setup for section 4.3


       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1                1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2                2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3                3
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2                2
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3                3
       Mid-point LSPs         1                1


6.4. Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop backup TE
   tunnels

           --------      -------- PRI  --------  PRI   --------
          |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |      |   R4   |
       TG-|   HE   |----| MID    |----|  MID   |------|   TE   |-TA
          |        |    | PLR    |    |        |      |        |
           --------      --------      --------        --------
                        BKP|              |
                           |    --------  |
                           |   |   R6   | |
                            ---|  BKP   |-
                               |  MID   |
                                --------
         Figure 5: Representing the setup for section 4.4


       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure

       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1              2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2              3
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3              4
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2              3
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3              4
       Mid-point LSPs         1              2


6.5. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels






Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



           --------      --------      --------        --------
          |  R1    |    |  R2    |PRI |   R3   | PRI  |   R4   |
       TG-|   HE   |----|  MID   |----|  MID   |------|  TE    |-TA
          |        |    |  PLR   |    |        |      |        |
           --------      --------      --------        --------
                          |BKP                          |
                           -----------------------------
         Figure 6: Representing the setup for section 4.5


       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure

       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             0
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             2
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             1
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             2
       Mid-point LSPs         1             0


6.6. Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
   tunnels



           --------      --------      --------      --------
          |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |    |   R4   |
       TG-|  HE    |    |  MID   |PRI |  MID   |PRI |  TE    |-TA
          |        |----|  PLR   |----|        |----|        |
           --------      --------      --------      --------
                          |                            |
                       BKP|          --------          |
                          |         |   R6   |         |
                           ---------|  BKP   |---------
                                    |  MID   |
                                     --------
         Figure 7: Representing setup for section 4.6




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure

       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             3
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             2
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             3
       Mid-point LSPs         1             1


6.7. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels



       --------    -------- PRI -------- PRI -------- PRI --------
      |  R1    |  |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
   TG-|   HE   |--|  MID   |---| MID    |---|  MP    |---|  TE    |-TA
      |        |  |  PLR   |   |        |   |        |   |        |
       --------    --------     --------     --------     --------
                  BKP|                          |
                      --------------------------
   Figure 8: Representing setup for section 4.7

       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure

       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             1
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             3
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             2
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             3
       Mid-point LSPs         1             1










Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



6.8. Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE
   tunnels

       --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
      |  R1    |   |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
   TG-|  HE    |   |   MID  |PRI|  MID   |PRI|  MP    |PRI|  TE    |-TA
      |        |-- |  PLR   |---|        |---|        |---|        |
       --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
                     BKP|                          |
                        |          --------        |
                        |         |  R6    |       |
                         ---------|  BKP   |-------
                                  |  MID   |
                                   --------
   Figure 9: Representing setup for section 4.8

       Traffic            No of Labels      No of labels
                          before failure    after failure

       IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             2
       Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             3
       Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             4
       Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             3
       Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             4
       Mid-point LSPs         1             2


7. Test Methodology

   The procedure described in this section can be applied to all the 8
   base test cases and the associated topologies. The backup as well as
   the primary tunnels are configured to be alike in terms of bandwidth
   usage. In order to benchmark failover with all possible label stack
   depth applicable as seen with current deployments, it is suggested
   that the methodology includes all the scenarios listed here

7.1. Headend as PLR with link failure

   Objective





Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Link failure events
   described in section 3.1 experienced by the DUT which is the point
   of local repair (PLR).

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       Generator/analyzer. (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
       A simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
       one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
       downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
       a link connected to the traffic analyzer).


   Test Configuration

      1. Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
           as required by the topology selected.
      2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe
           in Appendix A) by the tail end.


      Procedure

      1. Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.
      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
      7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
      8. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section 3.1.
      9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels.
      10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
      11. Failover time is calculated as defined in section 6, Reporting
         format.


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

      12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when protected
         interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due to make
         before break or reversion.
      13. Enable protected interface that was down (Node in the case of
         NNHOP).
      14. Verify headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
         place again.


7.2. Mid-Point as PLR with link failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Link failure events
   described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test which
   is the point of local repair (PLR).

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 4
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       generator.


   Test Configuration

      1. Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
           as required by the topology selected.
      2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
           Appendix A) by the tail end.



   Procedure

      1. Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
      7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
      8. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section 3.1.
      9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels.
      10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
      11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
         Reporting format.
      12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when protected
         interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due to make
         before break or reversion.
      13. Enable protected interface that was down (Node in the case of
         NNHOP).
      14. Verify headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
         place again.

7.3. Headend as PLR with Node Failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
   described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test, which
   is the point of local repair (PLR).

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology from section 4.5 to 4.8
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP, VPN, or VC
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       generator.

   Test Configuration

     1.  Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
          as required by the topology selected.
     2.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.


   Procedure



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


      1. Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.
      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
      7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
      8. Trigger any choice of Node failure as describe in section 3.1.
      9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels
      10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
      11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
         Reporting format.
      12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when protected
         interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due to make
         before break or reversion.
      13. Boot protected Node that was down.
      14. Verify headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
         place again.


7.4. Mid-Point as PLR with Node failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
   described in section 3.1 experienced by the device under test, which
   is the point of local repair (PLR).

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology from section 4.5 to 4.8.
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs.
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       generator.

   Test Configuration




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

      1. Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
           as required by the topology selected.
      2. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
           Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure

      1. Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.
      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum Forwarding Rate to DUT.
      7. Verify traffic switched over Primary LSP.
      8. Trigger any choice of Node failure as describe in section 3.1.
      9. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels.
      10. Stop traffic stream and measure the traffic loss.
      11. Failover time is calculated as per defined in section 6,
         Reporting format.
      12. Start traffic stream again to verify reversion when protected
         interface comes up. Traffic loss should be 0 due to make
         before break or reversion.
      13. Boot protected Node that was down.
      14. Verify headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
         place again.
















Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


7.5. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Test cases

     For the following MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Benchmarking
     cases, Test the maximum PPS rate allowed by given hardware. One
     may follow the procedure for determining MPLS forwarding
     performance defined in [MPLS-FORWARD]

7.5.1. PLR as Headend

   Objective

   To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as headend) over
   primary FRR LSP and backup LSP.

    Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 4.
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC.
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       Generator/analyzer. (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
       A simulated node, then the Ingress of the tunnel should have
       one link connected to the traffic generator and the node
       downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
       a link connected to the traffic analyzer).

    Procedure

      1. Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.
      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that the
         device under test supports over the primary LSP.
      7. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over primary LSP.
      8. Stop traffic stream.
      9. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section 3.1.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

      10. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels.
      11. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that the
         device under test supports over the primary LSP.
      12. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over backup LSP.

7.5.2. PLR as Mid-point

   Objective

   To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as mid-point of the
   primary path and ingress of the backup path) over primary FRR LSP
   and backup LSP.


   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 4.
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs.
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       generator.

   Procedure

      1. Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
         selected.
      2. Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
      3. Verify primary and backup LSPs are up and that primary is
         protected.
      4. Verify Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
      5. Setup traffic streams as described in section 3.7.
      6. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that the
         device under test supports over the primary LSP.
      7. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over primary LSP.
      8. Stop traffic stream.
      9. Trigger any choice of Link failure as describe in section 3.1.
      10. Verify that primary tunnel and prefixes gets mapped to backup
         tunnels.
      11. Send IP traffic at maximum forwarding rate (pps) that the
         device under test supports over the backup LSP.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

      12. Record maximum PPS rate forwarded over backup LSP.





8. Reporting Format

   For each test, it is recommended that the results be reported in the
   following format.

        Parameter                          Units

        IGP used for the test              ISIS-TE/ OSPF-TE

        Interface types                    Gige,POS,ATM,VLAN etc.

        Packet Sizes offered to the DUT    Bytes

        Forwarding rate                    Number of packets per
                                           second

        IGP routes advertised              Number of IGP routes

        RSVP hello timers configured       Milliseconds
        (if any)

        Number of FRR tunnels              Number of tunnels
        configured

        Number of VPN routes installed     Number of VPN routes
        on the headend

        Number of VC tunnels               Number of VC tunnels

        Number of BGP routes               BGP routes installed

        Number of mid-point tunnels        Number of tunnels

        Number of Prefixes protected by    Number of LSPs
        Primary

        Topology being used                Section number, and
                                           figure reference




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

        Failure event                      Event type



   Benchmarks

        Parameter                 Unit

        Minimum failover time     Milliseconds

        Mean failover time        Milliseconds

        Maximum failover time     Milliseconds

        Minimum reversion time    Milliseconds

        Mean reversion time       Milliseconds

        Maximum reversion time    Milliseconds



   Failover time suggested above is calculated using one of the
   following three methods

      1. Packet-Based Loss method (PBLM): (Number of packets
        dropped/packets per second * 1000) milliseconds. This method
        could also be referred as Rate Derived method.

      2. Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM): This method relies on the
        ability of the Traffic generators to provide statistics which
        reveal the duration of failure in milliseconds based on when
        the packet loss occurred (interval between non-zero packet loss
        and zero loss).

      3. Timestamp Based Method (TBM): This method of failover
        calculation is based on the timestamp that gets transmitted as
        payload in the packets originated by the generator. The Traffic
        Analyzer records the timestamp of the last packet received
        before the failover event and the first packet after the
        failover and derives the time based on the difference between
        these 2 timestamps. Note: The payload could also contain
        sequence numbers for out-of-order packet calculation and
        duplicate packets.

   Note: If the primary is configured to be dynamic, and if the primary
   is to reroute, make before break should occur from the backup that


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 24]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   is in use to a new alternate primary. If there is any packet loss
   seen, it should be added to failover time.



9. Security Considerations

   During the course of test, the test topology must be disconnected
   from devices that may forward the test traffic into a production
   environment.

   There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
   this document.

10. IANA Considerations

   There are no considerations for IANA at this time.

11.  References

11.1. Normative References

   [MPLS-FRR-EXT]   Pan, P., Atlas, A., Swallow, G., "Fast Reroute
                    Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090.

11.2. Informative References

   [TERM-ID]        Poretsky S., Papneja R., Karthik J., Vapiwala S.,
                    "Benchmarking Terminology  for Protection
                    Performance", draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-
                    05.txt, work in progress.

   [MPLS-FRR-EXT]   Pan P., Swallow G., Atlas A., "Fast Reroute
                    Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels'', RFC 4090.

   [IGP-METH]       S. Poretsky, B. Imhoff, "Benchmarking Methodology
                    for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence, draft-ietf-
                    bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16.txt, work in
                    progress.

   [MPLS-FORWARD]   A. Akhter, and R. Asati, ''MPLS Forwarding
                    Benchmarking Methodology,'' draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-
                    forwarding-meth-00.txt, work in progress.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 25]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



Author's Addresses



   Rajiv Papneja
   Isocore
   12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, STE 100
   Reston, VA 20190
   USA
   Phone: +1 703 860 9273
   Email: rpapneja@isocore.com

   Samir Vapiwala
   Cisco System
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   USA
   Phone: +1 978 936 1484
   Email: svapiwal@cisco.com

   Jay Karthik
   Cisco System
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   USA
   Phone: +1 978 936 0533
   Email: jkarthik@cisco.com

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

   Shankar Rao
   Qwest Communications,
   950 17th Street
   Suite 1900


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 26]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   Qwest Communications
   Denver, CO 80210
   USA
   Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
   Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2 av Pierre Marzin
   22300 Lannion
   France
   Phone: 00 33 2 96 05 30 20
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.









Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 27]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms



Disclaimer

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.


12. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Jean Philip Vasseur for his invaluable input
   to the document and Curtis Villamizar his contribution in suggesting
   text on definition and need for benchmarking Correlated failures.

   Additionally we would like to thank Arun Gandhi, Amrit Hanspal, Karu
   Ratnam and for their input to the document.



Appendix A: Fast Reroute Scalability Table

   This section provides the recommended numbers for evaluating the
   scalability of fast reroute implementations. It also recommends the
   typical numbers for IGP/VPNv4 Prefixes, LSP Tunnels and VC entries.
   Based  on  the  features  supported  by  the  device  under  test,
   appropriate scaling limits can be used for the test bed.






Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 28]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


   A 1. FRR IGP Table

        No. of Headend TE Tunnels       IGP Prefixes

        1                               100

        1                               500

        1                               1000

        1                               2000

        1                               5000

        2 (Load Balance)                100

        2 (Load Balance)                500

        2 (Load Balance)                1000

        2 (Load Balance)                2000

        2 (Load Balance)                5000

        100                             100

        500                             500

        1000                            1000

        2000                            2000
















Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 29]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms


A 2. FRR VPN Table

        No. of Headend TE Tunnels       VPNv4 Prefixes

        1                               100

        1                               500

        1                               1000

        1                               2000

        1                               5000

        1                               10000

        1                               20000

        1                               Max

        2 (Load Balance)                100

        2 (Load Balance)                500

        2 (Load Balance)                1000

        2 (Load Balance)                2000

        2 (Load Balance)                5000

        2 (Load Balance)                10000

        2 (Load Balance)                20000

        2 (Load Balance)                Max



   A 3. FRR Mid-Point LSP Table

   No of Mid-point TE LSPs could be configured at recommended levels -
   100, 500, 1000, 2000, or max supported number.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 30]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   A 4.   FRR VC Table



        No. of Headend TE Tunnels       VC entries

        1                               100

        1                               500

        1                               1000

        1                               2000

        1                               Max

        100                             100

        500                             500

        1000                            1000

        2000                            2000


Appendix B: Abbreviations

   BFD      - Bidirectional Fault Detection
   BGP      - Border Gateway protocol
   CE       - Customer Edge
   DUT      - Device Under Test
   FRR      - Fast Reroute
   IGP      - Interior Gateway Protocol
   IP       - Internet Protocol
   LSP      - Label Switched Path
   MP       - Merge Point
   MPLS     - Multi Protocol Label Switching
   N-Nhop   - Next - Next Hop
   Nhop     - Next Hop
   OIR      - Online Insertion and Removal
   P        - Provider
   PE       - Provider Edge
   PHP      - Penultimate Hop Popping
   PLR      - Point of Local Repair


Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 31]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       November 2008
                        Protection Mechanisms

   RSVP     - Resource reSerVation Protocol
   SRLG     - Shared Risk Link Group
   TA       - Traffic Analyzer
   TE       - Traffic Engineering
   TG       - Traffic Generator
   VC       - Virtual Circuit
   VPN      - Virtual Private Network









































Papneja, et al.          Expires April, 2009                  [Page 32]


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