[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                                        R. Papneja
Internet Draft                                                  Isocore
Intended Status: Informational
Expires: April  2010                                        S. Vapiwala
                                                             J. Karthik
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                            S. Poretsky
                                                   Allot Communications

                                                                 S. Rao
                                                   Qwest Communications

                                                           J.L. Le Roux
                                                         France Telecom

                                                           October 2009

          Methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms
                  draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-06.txt

Status of this Memo
   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2010.

Copyright Notice
   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

Abstract
   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
   testbed setup for measuring failover times while considering
   all dependencies that might impact faster recovery of real-time
   applications bound to MPLS based traffic engineered tunnels.
   The benchmarking terms used in this document are defined in
   [TERM-ID].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Document Scope.................................................4
   3. Existing definitions...........................................5
   4. General Reference Topology.....................................5
   5. Test Considerations............................................6
   5.1. Failover Events..............................................6
   5.2. Failure Detection............................................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....................................................8
   5.7. Offered Load.................................................8
   5.8. Tester Capabilities..........................................9
   6. Reference Test Setups..........................................9
   6.1 Link Protection...............................................9
   6.2 Node Protection..............................................13
   7. Test Methodologies............................................15
   7.1. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance Test Cases..................15
   7.2. Headend PLR with link failure...............................17
   7.3. Mid-Point PLR with link failure.............................18
   7.4. Headend PLR with Node Failure...............................19

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   7.5. Mid-Point PLR with Node Failure.............................21
   8. Reporting Format..............................................23
   9. Security Considerations.......................................24
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................24
   11. References...................................................24
   11.1. Normative References.......................................24
   11.2. Informative References.....................................24
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................24
   Author's Addresses...............................................25
   Appendix A: Fast Reroute Scalability Table.......................26
   Appendix B: Abbreviations........................................38

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 promise to improve service disruption period by
   minimizing recovery time from most common failures.

   Network elements from different manufacturers behave differently to
   network failures, which impacts the network's ability and
   performance for failure recovery.  It therefore becomes imperative
   for service providers to have a common benchmark to understand the
   performance behaviors of network elements.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   There are two factors impacting service availability:
   frequency of failures and duration for which the failures persist.
   Failures can be classified further into two types: correlated and
   uncorrelated.  Correlated and uncorrelated failures may be planned
   or unplanned.

   Planned failures are predictable.  Network implementations should
   be able to handle both planned and unplanned failures and recover
   gracefully within a time frame to maintain 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.

   A correlated failure is the simultaneous occurrence
   of two or more failures. A typical example is failure of a logical
   resource (e.g. layer-2 links) due to a dependency on a common
   physical resource  (e.g. common conduit) that 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 correlated failures.  Not all correlated failures are
   predictable in advance, for example, those caused by natural
   disasters.


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 on the
   Data Plane.   Different Failover Events and scaling considerations
   are also provided in this document.

   All benchmarking testcases 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 performance of the Device
   Under Test (DUT) to recover from failures.  Data plane traffic is
   used to benchmark failover times.

   Benchmarking of correlated failures is out of scope of this
   document.  Protection from Bi-directional Forwarding Detection
   (BFD) is outside the scope of this document.


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

3. Existing definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [Br97].  RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
   intent of standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this
   document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
   document.

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

   This document uses much of the terminology defined in
   [TERM-ID].  This document also uses existing terminology defined
   in other BMWG work.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

             Throughput                [Ref.[Br91], section 3.17]
             Device Under Test (DUT)   [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.1]
             System Under Test (SUT)   [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.2]
             Out-of-order Packet       [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2]
             Duplicate Packet          [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.3]

4. General Reference Topology

   Figure 1 illustrates the basic reference testbed and is applicable
   to all the test cases defined in this document. The Tester is
   comprised of a Traffic Generator (TG) & Test Analyzer (TA). A
   Tester is directly connected to the DUT.  The Tester sends and
   receives IP traffic to the tunnel ingress and performs signaling
   protocol emulation to simulate real network scenarios in a lab
   environment. The Tester may also support MPLS-TE signaling to act
   as the ingress node to the MPLS tunnel.

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

                       Fig.1: Fast Reroute Topology.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   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.

   The label stack is dependent of the following 3 entities:

       - 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

   Due to this dependency, it is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarking of
   failover times be performed on all the topologies provided in
   section 6.

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

   Node failure events
       - A System reload initiated either by a graceful shutdown or by
         a power failure.
       - A system crash due to a software failure or an assert.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

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.
   However for directly connected devices, remote fault indication in
   the ethernet auto-negotiation scheme could be considered as a type
   of layer 2 link failure indicator.

   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 [TERM-ID].  Failover Packet Loss [TERM-ID] is an
   externally observable event and has direct impact on application
   performance.  MPLS protection 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 to verify failover. Failover
   is best determined when packets are actually traversing the backup
   path.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   An additional benefit of using packet loss for calculation of
   failover time is that it allows use of a black-box test environment.
   Data traffic is offered at line-rate to the device under test (DUT)
   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.  The methodologies consider lost, out-of-order, and
   duplicate packets to be impaired packets that contribute to the
   Failover Time.


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).
   The amount 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.  See [IGP-METH] for IGP options to consider and
   report.

5.6. Restoration and Reversion [TERM-ID]

   Fast Reroute provides a method to return or restore an original
   primary LSP upon recovery from the failure (Restoration) and to
   switch traffic from the Backup Path to the restored Primary Path
   (Reversion).  In MPLS-FRR, Reversion can be implemented as Global
   Reversion or Local Reversion.  It is important to include
   Restoration and Reversion as a step in each test case to measure
   the amount of packet loss, out of order packets, or duplicate
   packets that is produced.

5.7. Offered Load

   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.

   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


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   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 Tester Capabilities

   It is RECOMMENDED that the Tester used to execute each test case
   have the following capabilities:
      1. Ability to establish MPLS-TE tunnels and push/pop labels.
      2. Ability to produce Failover Event [TERM-ID].
      3. Ability to insert a timestamp in each data packet's IP
         payload.
      4. An internal time clock to control timestamping, time
         measurements, and time calculations.
      5. Ability to disable or tune specific Layer-2 and Layer-3
         protocol functions on any interface(s).

    The Tester MAY be capable to make non-data plane convergence
    observations and use those observations for measurements.

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 topologies can be
   mapped to the reference topology shown in Figure 1.  Topologies
   provided in this section refer to the testbed required to
   benchmark failover time when the DUT is configured as a PLR in
   either Headend or midpoint role.  Provided with each topology
   below is the label stack at the PLR.  Penultimate Hop
   Popping (PHP) MAY be used and must be reported when used.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                   [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   Figures 2 thru 9 use 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 Path
   g) BKP denotes Backup Path and Nodes

6.1. Link Protection

6.1.1 Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels

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

                          Figure 2.

       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num of labels
                          before failure    after 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 2010                  [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

6.1.2. Link Protection - 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.


       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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


6.1.3. Link Protection - 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.


       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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 2010                  [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

6.1.4. Link Protection - 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.


       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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









Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

6.2. Node Protection

6.2.1. Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE
   tunnels

           --------      --------      --------        --------
          |  R1    |    |  R2    |PRI |   R3   | PRI  |   R4   |
       TG-|   HE   |----|  MID   |----|  MID   |------|  TE    |-TA
          |        |    |  PLR   |    |        |      |        |
           --------      --------      --------        --------
                          |BKP                          |
                           -----------------------------

                             Figure 6.

       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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


6.2.2. Node Protection - 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.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms


       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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


6.2.3. Node Protection - 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.

       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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 2010                  [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms



6.2.4. Node Protection - 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.

       Traffic            Num of Labels     Num 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 RECOMMENDED
   to perform all of the test cases provided in this section.  The
   forwarding performance test cases in section 7.1 MUST be performed
   prior to performing the failover test cases.


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.1. MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance

   Benchmarking Failover Time [TERM-ID] for MPLS protection first
   requires baseline measurement of the forwarding performance of the
   test topology including the DUT.  Forwarding performance is
   benchmarked by the metric Throughput as defined in [Br91] and
   measured in units pps.  This section provides two test cases to
   benchmark forwarding performance.  These are with the DUT
   configured as a Headend PLR, Mid-Point PLR, and Egress PLR.

7.1.1. Headend PLR Forwarding Performance

   Objective

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

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.
     - Select overlay technologies (e.g. IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
       as Headend PLR.
     - 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 5.7.
      6. Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the Throughput
         supported by the DUT.
      7. Record the Throughput over the primary LSP.
      8. Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
         and measure the Additive Backup Delay.
      10. 30 seconds after Failover, stop the offered load and
          measure the Throughput, Packet Loss, Out-of-Order Packets,
          and Duplicate Packets over the Backup LSP.
      11. Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
          the Throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
          equal.
      12. Record the Throughput.  This is the offered load that will be
          used for the Headend PLR failover test cases.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.1.2. Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance

   Objective

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

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 6.
     - Select overlay technologies (e.g. IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
       as Mid-Point PLR.
     - 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 5.7.
      6. Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the Throughput
         supported by the DUT.
      7. Record the Throughput over the primary LSP.
      8. Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup
         tunnel and measure the Additive Backup Delay.
      10. 30 seconds after Failover, stop the offered load and
          measure the Throughput, Packet Loss, Out-of-Order Packets,
          and Duplicate Packets over the Backup LSP.
      11. Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
          the Throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
          equal.
      12. Record the Throughput.  This is the offered load that will
          be used for the Mid-Point PLR failover test cases.





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.1.3. Egress PLR Forwarding Performance

   Objective

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

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 6.
     - Select overlay technologies (e.g. IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
       as Egress PLR.
     - 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 5.7.
      6. Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the Throughput
         supported by the DUT.
      7. Record the Throughput over the primary LSP.
      8. Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup
         tunnels and measure the Additive Backup Delay..
      10. 30 seconds after Failover, stop the offered load and
          measure the Throughput, Packet Loss, Out-of-Order Packets,
          and Duplicate Packets over the Backup LSP.
      11. Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
          the Throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
          equal.
      12. Record the Throughput.  This is the offered load that will be
          used for the Egress PLR failover test cases.

7.2. Headend PLR with Link Failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
   described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the
   Headend PLR.

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 6
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test (e.g. IGP,VPN,or VC).

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

     - 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. Configure the test setup to support Reversion.
      3. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described
           in Appendix A) by the tail end.

      Procedure
      Test Case "7.1.1. Headend PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.

      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 for the offered load as described
         in section 5.7.
      6. Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
         [Br91] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.
      7. Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
         loss.
      8. Trigger a link failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup
         tunnel and measure the Additive Backup Delay.
      10. 30 seconds after Failover [TERM-ID], stop the offered
          load and measure the total Failover Packet Loss [TERM-ID].
      11. Calculate the Failover Time [TERM-ID] benchmark using the
          selected Failover Time Calculation Method (TBLM, PLBM, or
          TBM) [TERM-ID].
      12. Restart the offered load and restore the primary LSP to
          verify Reversion [TERM-ID] occurs and measure the Reversion
          Packet Loss [TERM-ID].
      13. Calculate the Reversion Time [TERM-ID] benchmark using the
          selected Failover Time Calculation Method (TBLM, PLBM, or
          TBM) [TERM-ID].
      14. Verify Headend signals new LSP and protection should be in
          place again.

      IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of
      the link failure triggers defined in section 5.1.


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.3. Mid-Point PLR with link failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
   described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which
   is the Mid-Point PLR.

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology out of 8 from section 6
     - 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. Configure the test setup to support Reversion.
      3. Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability Table described in
           Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure
      Test Case "7.1.2. Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.

      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. Perform steps 3 through 14 from section 7.2 Headend PLR
         with Link Failure.

      IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of
      the link failure triggers defined in section 5.1.


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.4. Headend PLR with Node Failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
   described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the
   Headend PLR.

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology from section 6.5 to 6.8
     - 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.  Configure the test setup to support Reversion.
     3.  Advertise prefixes (as per FRR Scalability table describe in
          Appendix A) by the tail end.

   Procedure

      Test Case "7.1.1. Headend PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.

      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 for the offered load as described
         in section 5.7.
      6. Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
         [Br91] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.
      7. Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
         loss.
      8. Trigger a node failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Perform steps 9 through 14 in 7.2 Headend PLR with Link
         Failure.

      IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of
      the node failure triggers defined in section 5.1.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

7.5. Mid-Point PLR with Node failure

   Objective

   To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to Node failure events
   described in section 5.1 experienced by the DUT which is the
   Mid-Point PLR.

   Test Setup

     - Select any one topology from section 6.5 to 6.8.
     - Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs.
     - The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
       generator.

   Test Configuration

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

   Procedure

      Test Case "7.1.2. Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.

      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 for the offered load as described
         in section 5.7.
      6. Provide the offered load from the tester at the Throughput
         [Br91] level obtained from test case 7.1.1.
      7. Verify traffic is switched over Primary LSP without packet
         loss.
      8. Trigger a node failure as described in section 5.1.
      9. Perform steps 9 through 14 in 7.2 Headend PLR with Link
         Failure.

      IT is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of
      the node failure triggers defined in section 5.1.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

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                    packets per second

        IGP routes advertised              Number of IGP routes

        Penultimate Hop Popping            Used/Not Used

        RSVP hello timers                  Milliseconds

        Number of FRR tunnels              Number of tunnels

        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

        Failover Event                     Event type






Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

   Benchmarks (to be recorded for each test case):

   Failover-
       Failover Time                        seconds
       Failover Packet Loss                 packets
       Additive Backup Delay                seconds
       Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
       Duplicate Packets                    packets

   Reversion-
       Reversion Time                       seconds
       Reversion Packet Loss                packets
       Additive Backup Delay                seconds
       Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
       Duplicate Packets                    packets

   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.






Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 24]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

9. Security Considerations
   Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
   Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
   performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
   Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media
   layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and various
   other drafts.  This document attempts to formalize a set of
   common methodology for benchmarking performance of failover
   mechanisms in a lab environment.

10. IANA Considerations
   This document requires no IANA considerations.

11.  References

11.1. Informative References
      NONE

11.2. Normative References

   [TERM-ID] Poretsky S., Papneja R., Karthik J., Vapiwala S.,
             "Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance",
             draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-06.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-17.txt", work in progress.

   [Br91] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for
          Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

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

   [Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
          Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

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

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 Al Morton, Arun Gandhi,
   Amrit Hanspal, Karu Ratnam, Raveesh Janardan, Andrey Kiselev, and
   Mohan Nanduri for their formal reviews of this document.

Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 25]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        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
   USA
   Phone: +1 508 309 2179
   EMail: sporetsky@allot.com

   Shankar Rao
   Qwest Communications,
   950 17th Street
   Suite 1900
   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


Papneja, et al.          Expires April 2010                  [Page 26]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        Protection Mechanisms

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 (DUT),
   appropriate scaling limits can be used for the test bed.

   A1. 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 2010                  [Page 27]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        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 2010                  [Page 28]


Internet-Draft    Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS       October 2009
                        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
   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 2010                  [Page 29]


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