[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                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                             S. Vapiwala
Expires: April 28, 2012                                       J. Karthik
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            S. Poretsky
                                                    Allot Communications
                                                                  S. Rao
                                                    Qwest Communications
                                                                 J. Roux
                                                          France Telecom
                                                        October 26, 2011


        Methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms
                 draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09.txt

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].

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.






























Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Existing Definitions and Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  General Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Test Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Failover Events [TERM-ID]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Failure Detection [TERM-ID]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection benchmarking . . .  9
     5.4.  LSP and Route Scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.5.  Selection of IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.6.  Restoration and Reversion [TERM-ID]  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.7.  Offered Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.8.  Tester Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Reference Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Link Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.1.1.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.1.2.  Link Protection - 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.3.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.4.  Link Protection - 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.2.  Node Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.2.1.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.2.2.  Node Protection - 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       6.2.3.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.2.4.  Node Protection - 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2
               hop backup TE tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1.  MPLS FRR Forwarding Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.1.1.  Headend PLR Forwarding Performance . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.1.2.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance . . . . . . . . . 19
       7.1.3.  Egress PLR Forwarding Performance  . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.2.  Headend PLR with Link Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.3.  Mid-Point PLR with Link Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.4.  Headend PLR with Node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     7.5.  Mid-Point PLR with Node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   8.  Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


     12.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     12.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Appendix A.  Fast Reroute Scalability Table  . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Appendix B.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33














































Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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.

   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.

   MPLS Fast Re-Route (MPLS-FRR) allows for the possibility that the
   Label Switched Paths can be re-optimized in the minutes following
   Failover.  IP Traffic would be re-routed according to the preferred
   path for the post-failure topology.  Thus, MPLS-FRR includes an
   additional step to the General model:





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011




      (1)  Failover Event - Primary Path (Working Path) fails

      (2)  Failure Detection- Failover Event is detected

      (3)

           a.  Failover - Working Path switched to Backup path

           b.  Re-Optimization of Working Path (possible change from
               Backup Path)

      (4)  Restoration - Primary Path recovers from a Failover Event

      (5)  Reversion (optional) - Working Path returns to Primary Path


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.

   As described above, MPLS-FRR may include a Re-optimization of the
   Working Path, with possible packet transfer impairments.
   Characterization of Re-optimization is beyond the scope of this memo.


3.  Existing Definitions and Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [Br97].  RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   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   |---------+            |
                    |        |----------------------+
                    +--------+





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


                       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.

   The label stack is dependent of the following 3 entities:

      (1)  Type of protection (Link Vs Node)

      (2)  # of remaining hops of the primary tunnel from the PLR

      (3)  # 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:

      (1)  The types of network events that causes failover

      (2)  Indications for failover

      (3)  the use of data traffic

      (4)  Traffic generation

      (5)  LSP Scaling

      (6)  Reversion of LSP

      (7)  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





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


           - 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.

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



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   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.

   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.

   Note: In addition to restoration and reversion, re-optimization can
   take place while the failure is still not recovered but it depends on



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   the user configuration, and re-otimization timers.

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.

   At least 16 flows should be used, and more if possible.  Prefix-
   dependency behaviors are key in IP and tests with route-specific
   flows spread across the routing table will reveal this dependency.
   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).

         6.Ability to react upon the receipt of path error from the PLR

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



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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.

   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



               +-------+  +--------+    +--------+
               |  R1   |  |   R2   | PRI|   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



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


          Mid-point LSPs           0             0


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.






Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


          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


6.1.4.  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



6.2.  Node Protection

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






Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


             +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
             |  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 28, 2012                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


          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 28, 2012                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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.

   The considerations of Section 4 of [RFC2544] are applicable when
   evaluating the results obtained using these methodologies as well.






Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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 Throughput as defined in [MPLS-FWD] 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:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technologies (e.g.  IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
          as Headend PLR.

      C.  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.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      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.

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:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 9 from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technologies (e.g.  IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
          as Mid-Point PLR.

      C.  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.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      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.

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:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technologies (e.g.  IGP, VPN, or VC) with DUT
          as Egress PLR.





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      C.  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 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.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   Test Setup:



      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technology for FRR test (e.g.  IGP, VPN, or
          VC).

      C.  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.





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      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.

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:







Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      A.  Select any one topology out of the 8 from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs.

      C.  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.

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:



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011




      A.  Select any one topology from section 6.

      B.  Select overlay technology for FRR test (e.g.  IGP, VPN, or
          VC).

      C.  The DUT will also have 2 interfaces connected to the traffic
          generator/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.

      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.





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


      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.

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:



      A.  Select any one topology from section 6.1 to 6.2.

      B.  Select overlay technology for FRR test as Mid-Point LSPs.

      C.  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 "7.1.1.  Mid-Point PLR Forwarding Performance" MUST be
      completed first to obtain the Throughput to use as the offered
      load.




Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011




      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.


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 (at layer 3)

             Offered Load                       packets per second




Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


             IGP routes advertised              Number of IGP routes

             Penultimate Hop Popping            Used/Not Used

             RSVP hello timers                  Milliseconds

             Number of Protected 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 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

               Re-optimization                        Yes/No

        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
            Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used

        Reversion-
            Reversion Time                       seconds
            Reversion Packet Loss                packets
            Additive Backup Delay                seconds
            Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
            Duplicate Packets                    packets
            Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used


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





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


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

   The timestamp based method method would be able to detect Reversion
   impairments beyond loss, thus it is RECOMMENDED method as a Failover
   Time method.


9.  Security Considerations

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

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

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

   Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
   benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network security arising
   from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
   networks.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any new allocations by IANA.



Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


11.  Acknowledgements

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


12.  References

12.1.  Informative References

   [IGP-METH]
              Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
              for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route
              Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-23
              (work in progress), February 2011.

   [Br91]     Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
              interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

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

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [MPLS-FRR-EXT]
              Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [Po06]     Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
              "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic
              Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.

   [MPLS-FWD] Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
              Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
              November 2009.

   [RFC6414]  Papneja, R., Poretsky, S., Vapiwala, S., and J. Karthik,
              "Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance",
              RFC 6414, October 2011.





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


12.2.  Normative References

   [Br97]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.


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 28, 2012                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   A2.  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



   A3.  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.

   A2.  FRR VC Table





Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


           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 28, 2012                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Rajiv Papneja
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com


   Samir Vapiwala
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Email: svapiwal@cisco.com


   Jay Karthik
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Email: jkarthik@cisco.com


   Scott Poretsky
   Allot Communications
   USA

   Email: sporetsky@allot.com


   Shankar Rao
   5005 E. Dartmouth Ave.
   Denver, CO 80222
   USA

   Email: srao@du.edu







Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft         MPLS Protection Mechanisms           October 2011


   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2 av Pierre Marzin
   22300 Lannion
   France

   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com












































Papneja, et al.          Expires April 28, 2012                [Page 35]


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