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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 7501

Benchmarking Methodology Working                               C. Davids
Group                                   Illinois Institute of Technology
Internet-Draft                                                V. Gurbani
Intended status: Informational         Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: July 12, 2013                                       S. Poretsky
                                                    Allot Communications
                                                         January 8, 2013


     Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                           Networking Devices
                   draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-08

Abstract

   This document provides a terminology for benchmarking the SIP
   performance of networking devices.  The term performance in this
   context means the capacity of the device- or system-under-test to
   process SIP messages.  Terms are included for test components, test
   setup parameters, and performance benchmark metrics for black-box
   benchmarking of SIP networking devices.  The performance benchmark
   metrics are obtained for the SIP signaling plane only.  The terms are
   intended for use in a companion methodology document for
   characterizing the performance of a SIP networking device under a
   variety of conditions.  The intent of the two documents is to enable
   a comparison of the capacity of SIP networking devices.  Test setup
   parameters and a methodology document are necessary because SIP
   allows a wide range of configuration and operational conditions that
   can influence performance benchmark measurements.  A standard
   terminology and methodology will ensure that benchmarks have
   consistent definition and were obtained following the same
   procedures.

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."




Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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



































Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Benchmarking Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.1.  Protocol Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.1.  Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.2.  Signaling Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.1.3.  Media Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.1.4.  Associated Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.1.5.  Overload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       3.1.6.  Session Attempt  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.1.7.  Established Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.1.8.  Invite-initiated Session (IS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       3.1.9.  Non-INVITE-initiated Session (NS)  . . . . . . . . . . 22
       3.1.10. Session Attempt Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       3.1.11. Standing Sessions Count  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     3.2.  Test Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.2.1.  Emulated Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       3.2.2.  Signaling Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       3.2.3.  SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       3.2.4.  SIP Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     3.3.  Test Setup Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.3.1.  Session Attempt Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.3.2.  IS Media Attempt Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.3.3.  Establishment Threshold Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       3.3.4.  Session Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       3.3.5.  Media Packet Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       3.3.6.  Media Offered Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       3.3.7.  Media Session Hold Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.3.8.  Loop Detection Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.3.9.  Forking Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     3.4.  Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       3.4.1.  Registration Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       3.4.2.  Session Establishment Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       3.4.3.  Session Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       3.4.4.  Session Overload Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       3.4.5.  Session Establishment Performance  . . . . . . . . . . 33
       3.4.6.  Session Attempt Delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       3.4.7.  IM Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     7.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   Appendix A.  White Box Benchmarking Terminology  . . . . . . . . . 37
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

















































Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


1.  Terminology

   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, RFC2119
   [RFC2119].  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 term Throughput is defined in RFC2544 [RFC2544].

   For the sake of clarity and continuity, this document adopts the
   template for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242 [RFC1242].

   The terms Device Under Test (DUT) and System Under Test (SUT) are
   defined in the following BMWG documents:

      Device Under Test (DUT) (c.f., Section 3.1.1 RFC 2285 [RFC2285]).
      System Under Test (SUT) (c.f., Section 3.1.2, RFC 2285 [RFC2285]).

   Many commonly used SIP terms in this document are defined in RFC 3261
   [RFC3261].  For convenience the most important of these are
   reproduced below.  Use of these terms in this document is consistent
   with their corresponding definition in [RFC3261].
   o  Call Stateful: A proxy is call stateful if it retains state for a
      dialog from the initiating INVITE to the terminating BYE request.
      A call stateful proxy is always transaction stateful, but the
      converse is not necessarily true.
   o  Stateful Proxy: A logical entity that maintains the client and
      server transaction state machines defined by this specification
      during the processing of a request, also known as a transaction
      stateful proxy.  The behavior of a stateful proxy is further
      defined in Section 16 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] .  A transaction
      stateful proxy is not the same as a call stateful proxy.
   o  Stateless Proxy: A logical entity that does not maintain the
      client or server transaction state machines defined in this
      specification when it processes requests.  A stateless proxy
      forwards every request it receives downstream and every response
      it receives upstream.
   o  Back-to-back User Agent: A back-to-back user agent (B2BUA) is a
      logical entity that receives a request and processes it as a user
      agent server (UAS).  In order to determine how the request should
      be answered, it acts as a user agent client (UAC) and generates
      requests.  Unlike a proxy server, it maintains dialog state and
      must participate in all requests sent on the dialogues it has
      established.  Since it is a concatenation of a UAC and a UAS, no
      explicit definitions are needed for its behavior.





Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   o  Loop: A request that arrives at a proxy, is forwarded, and later
      arrives back at the same proxy.  When it arrives the second time,
      its Request-URI is identical to the first time, and other header
      fields that affect proxy operation are unchanged, so that the
      proxy will make the same processing decision on the request it
      made the first time.  Looped requests are errors, and the
      procedures for detecting them and handling them are described by
      the SIP protocol[RFC3261] and also by RFC 5393


2.  Introduction

   Service Providers and IT Organizations deliver Voice Over IP (VoIP)
   and Multimedia network services based on the IETF Session Initiation
   Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261].  SIP is a signaling protocol originally
   intended to be used to dynamically establish, disconnect and modify
   streams of media between end users.  As it has evolved it has been
   adopted for use in a growing number of services and applications.
   Many of these result in the creation of a media session, but some do
   not.  Examples of this latter group include text messaging and
   subscription services.  The set of benchmarking terms provided in
   this document is intended for use with any SIP-enabled device
   performing SIP functions in the interior of the network, whether or
   not these result in the creation of media sessions.  The performance
   of end-user devices is outside the scope of this document.

   A number of networking devices have been developed to support SIP-
   based VoIP services.  These include SIP Servers, Session Border
   Controllers (SBC), Back-to-back User Agents (B2BUA), and SIP-Aware
   Stateful Firewalls.  These devices contain a mix of voice and IP
   functions whose performance may be reported using metrics defined by
   the equipment manufacturer or vendor.  The Service Provider or IT
   Organization seeking to compare the performance of such devices will
   not be able to do so using these vendor-specific metrics, whose
   conditions of test and algorithms for collection are often
   unspecified.  SIP functional elements and the devices that include
   them can be configured many different ways and can be organized into
   various topologies.  These configuration and topological choices
   impact the value of any chosen signaling benchmark.  Unless these
   conditions-of-test are defined, a true comparison of performance
   metrics will not be possible.  Some SIP-enabled network devices
   terminate or relay media as well as signaling.  The processing of
   media by the device impacts the signaling performance.  As a result,
   the conditions-of-test must include information as to whether or not
   the device under test processes media and if the device does process
   media, a description of the media handled and the manner in which it
   is handled.  This document and its companion methodology document
   [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth] provide a set of black-box benchmarks



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   for describing and comparing the performance of devices that
   incorporate the SIP User Agent Client and Server functions and that
   operate in the network's core.

   The definition of SIP performance benchmarks necessarily includes
   definitions of Test Setup Parameters and a test methodology.  These
   enable the Tester to perform benchmarking tests on different devices
   and to achieve comparable results.  This document provides a common
   set of definitions for Test Components, Test Setup Parameters, and
   Benchmarks.  All the benchmarks defined are black-box measurements of
   the SIP signaling plane.  The Test Setup Parameters and Benchmarks
   defined in this document are intended for use with the companion
   Methodology document.  Benchmarks of internal DUT characteristics
   (also known as white-box benchmarks) such as Session Attempt Arrival
   Rate, which is measured at the DUT, are described in Appendix A to
   allow additional characterization of DUT behavior with different
   distribution models.

2.1.  Scope

   The scope of this work item is summarized as follows:
   o  This terminology document describes SIP signaling performance
      benchmarks for black-box measurements of SIP networking devices.
      Stress and debug scenarios are not addressed in this work item.
   o  The DUT must be an RFC 3261 capable network equipment.  This may
      be a Registrar, Redirect Server, Stateless Proxy or Stateful
      Proxy.  A DUT MAY also include a B2BUA, SBC functionality.  The
      DUT MAY be a multi-port SIP-to-switched network gateway
      implemented as a SIP UAC or UAS.
   o  The DUT MAY include an internal SIP Application Level Gateway
      (ALG), firewall, and/or a Network Address Translator (NAT).  This
      is referred to as the "SIP Aware Stateful Firewall."
   o  The DUT or SUT MUST NOT be end user equipment, such as personal
      digital assistant, a computer-based client, or a user terminal.
   o  The Tester acts as multiple "Emulated Agents" (EA) that initiate
      (or respond to) SIP messages as session endpoints and source (or
      receive) associated media for established connections.
   o  SIP Signaling in presence of Media
      *  The media performance is not benchmarked in this work item.
      *  It is RECOMMENDED that SIP signaling plane benchmarks be
         performed with media present, but this is optional.
      *  The SIP INVITE requests MUST include the SDP body.
      *  The type of DUT dictates whether the associated media streams
         traverse the DUT or SUT.  Both scenarios are within the scope
         of this work item.
      *  SIP is frequently used to create media streams; the signaling
         plane and media plane are treated as orthogonal to each other
         in this document.  While many devices support the creation of



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


         media streams, benchmarks that measure the performance of these
         streams are outside the scope of this document and its
         companion methodology document [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth].
         Tests may be performed with or without the creation of media
         streams.  The presence or absence of media streams MUST be
         noted as a condition of the test as the performance of SIP
         devices may vary accordingly.  Even if the media is used during
         benchmarking, only the SIP performance will be benchmarked, not
         the media performance or quality.
   o  Both INVITE and non-INVITE scenarios (such as Instant Messages or
      IM) are addressed in this document.  However, benchmarking SIP
      presence is not a part of this work item.
   o  Different transport mechanisms -- such as UDP, TCP, SCTP, or TLS
      -- may be used.  The specific transport mechanism MUST be noted as
      a condition of the test as the performance of SIP devices may vary
      accordingly.
   o  Looping and forking options are also considered since they impact
      processing at SIP proxies.
   o  REGISTER and INVITE requests may be challenged or remain
      unchallenged for authentication purpose.  Whether or not the
      REGISTER and INVITE requests are challenged is a condition of test
      which will be recorded along with other such parameters which may
      impact the SIP performance of the device or system under test.
   o  Re-INVITE requests are not considered in scope of this work item
      since the benchmarks for INVITEs are based on the dialog created
      by the INVITE and not on the transactions that take place within
      that dialog.
   o  Only session establishment is considered for the performance
      benchmarks.  Session disconnect is not considered in the scope of
      this work item.  This is because our goal is to determine the
      maximum capacity of the device or system under test, that is the
      number of simultaneous SIP sessions that the device or system can
      support.  It is true that there are BYE requests being created
      during the test process.  These transactions do contribute to the
      load on the device or system under test and thus are accounted for
      in the metric we derive.  We do not seek a separate metric for the
      number of BYE transactions a device or system can support.
   o  SIP Overload [RFC6357] is within the scope of this work item.  We
      test to failure and then can continue to observe and record the
      behavior of the system after failures are recorded.  The cause of
      failure is not within the scope of this work.  We note the failure
      and may continue to test until a different failure or condition is
      encountered.  Considerations on how to handle overload are
      deferred to work progressing in the SOC working group
      [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-control].  Vendors are, of course, free to
      implement their specific overload control behavior as the expected
      test outcome if it is different from the IETF recommendations.
      However, such behavior MUST be documented and interpreted



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      appropriately across multiple vendor implementations.  This will
      make it more meaningful to compare the performance of different
      SIP overload implementations.
   o  IMS-specific scenarios are not considered, but test cases can be
      applied with 3GPP-specific SIP signaling and the P-CSCF as a DUT.

2.2.  Benchmarking Models

   This section shows ten models to be used when benchmarking SIP
   performance of a networking device.  Figure 1 shows shows the
   configuration needed to benchmark the tester itself.  This model will
   be used to establish the limitations of the test apparatus.


     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester |                              | Tester |
     |   EA   |      Signaling response      |   EA   |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     +--------+                              +--------+
        /|\                                       /|\
         |                  Media                  |
         +=========================================+


    Figure 1: Baseline performance of the Emulated Agent without a DUT
                                  present

   Figure 2 shows the DUT playing the role of a user agent client (UAC),
   initiating requests and absorbing responses.  This model can be used
   to baseline the performance of the DUT acting as an UAC without
   associated media.


     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | DUT    |                              | Tester |
     |        |      Signaling response      |   EA   |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     +--------+                              +--------+


   Figure 2: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent client
                         without associated media

   Figure 3 shows the DUT playing the role of a user agent server (UAS),
   absorbing the requests and sending responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAS without



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   associated media.


     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester |                              |  DUT   |
     |   EA   |      Response                |        |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     +--------+                              +--------+


   Figure 3: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent server
                         without associated media

   Figure 4 shows the DUT plays the role of a user agent client (UAC),
   initiating requests and absorbing responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAC with associated
   media.


     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | DUT    |                              | Tester |
     |        |      Signaling response      |  (EA)  |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     |        |<============ Media =========>|        |
     +--------+                              +--------+


   Figure 4: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent  client
                           with associated media

   Figure 5 shows the DUT plays the role of a user agent server (UAS),
   absorbing the requests and sending responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAS with associated
   media.


     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester |                              |  DUT   |
     |  (EA)  |      Response                |        |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     |        |<============ Media =========>|        |
     +--------+                              +--------+


   Figure 5: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent  server



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


                           with associated media

   Figure 6 shows that the Tester acts as the initiating and responding
   EA as the DUT/SUT forwards Session Attempts.


      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |  (EA)  |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+


     Figure 6: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                               without media

   Figure 7 is used when performing those same benchmarks with
   Associated Media traversing the DUT/SUT.


      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |  (EA)  |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |   Media     |        |   Media     |        |
      |        |<===========>|        |<===========>|        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+


     Figure 7: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                       with media traversing the DUT

   Figure 8 is to be used when performing those same benchmarks with
   Associated Media, but the media does not traverse the DUT/SUT.
   Again, the benchmarking of the media is not within the scope of this
   work item.  The SIP control signaling is benchmarked in the presence
   of Associated Media to determine if the SDP body of the signaling and
   the handling of media impacts the performance of the DUT/SUT.






Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |  (EA)  |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+
          /|\                                           /|\
           |                    Media                    |
           +=============================================+


     Figure 8: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                      with media external to the DUT

   Figure 9 is used when performing benchmarks that require one or more
   intermediaries to be in the signaling path.  The intent is to gather
   benchmarking statistics with a series of DUTs in place.  In this
   topology, the media is delivered end-to-end and does not traverse the
   DUT.

                                  SUT
              ------------------^^^^^^^^-------------
             /                                       \
      +------+ Session  +---+ Session  +---+ Session  +------+
      |      | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |      |
      |      |<---------+   |<---------+   |<---------+      |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |      | Response |   | Response |   | Response |      |
      |Tester+--------->|DUT+--------->|DUT|--------->|Tester|
      | (EA) |          |   |          |   |          | (EA) |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      +------+          +---+          +---+          +------+
          /|\                                           /|\
           |                    Media                    |
           +=============================================+


     Figure 9: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                  with multiple DUTs and end-to-end media

   Figure 10 is used when performing benchmarks that require one or more
   intermediaries to be in the signaling path.  The intent is to gather
   benchmarking statistics with a series of DUTs in place.  In this
   topology, the media is delivered hop-by-hop through each DUT.




Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


                                  SUT
               -----------------^^^^^^^^-------------
              /                                      \
      +------+ Session  +---+ Session  +---+ Session  +------+
      |      | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |      |
      |      |<---------+   |<---------+   |<---------+      |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |      | Response |   | Response |   | Response |      |
      |Tester+--------->|DUT+--------->|DUT|--------->|Tester|
      | (EA) |          |   |          |   |          | (EA) |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |      |<========>|   |<========>|   |<========>|      |
      +------+ Media    +---+ Media    +---+ Media    +------+



    Figure 10: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                 with multiple DUTs and  hop- by-hop media

   Figure 11 illustrates the SIP signaling for an Established Session.
   The Tester acts as the EAs and initiates a Session Attempt with the
   DUT/SUT.  When the EA receives a 200 OK from the DUT/SUT that session
   is considered to be an Established Session.  The illustration
   indicates three states of the session bring created by the EA - (1)
   Attempting, (2) Established, and (3) Disconnecting.  Sessions can be
   one of two type: Invite-Initiated Session (IS) or Non-Invite
   Initiated Session (NS).  Failure for the DUT/SUT to successfully
   respond within the Establishment Threshold Time is considered a
   Session Attempt Failure.  SIP Invite messages MUST include the SDP
   body to specify the Associated Media.  Use of Associated Media, to be
   sourced from the EA, is optional.  When Associated Media is used, it
   may traverse the DUT/SUT depending upon the type of DUT/SUT.  The
   Associated Media is shown in Figure 11 as "Media" connected to media
   ports M1 and M2 on the EA.  After the EA sends a BYE, the session
   disconnects.  Performance test cases for session disconnects are not
   considered in this work item (the BYE request is shown for
   completeness.)














Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


            EA           DUT/SUT   M1       M2
            |               |       |       |
            |    INVITE     |       |       |
   ---------+-------------->|       |       |
            |               |       |       |
   Attempting               |       |       |
            |    200 OK     |       |       |
   ---------+<--------------|       |       |
            |    ACK        |       |       |
            |-------------->|       |       |
            |               |       |       |
            |               |       |       |
            |               |       | Media |
   Established              |       |<=====>|
            |               |       |       |
            |      BYE      |       |       |
   --------+--------------> |       |       |
            |               |       |       |
   Disconnecting            |       |       |
            |   200 OK      |       |       |
   --------|<-------------- |       |       |
            |               |       |       |


                Figure 11: Invite-initiated Session States


3.  Term Definitions

3.1.  Protocol Components

3.1.1.  Session

   Definition:
      The combination of signaling and media messages and processes that
      support a SIP-based service.

   Discussion:
      SIP messages are used to create and manage services for end users.
      Often, these services include the creation of media streams that
      are defined in the SDP body of a SIP message and carried in RTP
      protocol data units.  However, SIP messages can also be used to
      create Instant Message services and subscription services, and
      such services are not associated with media streams.  SIP reserves
      the term "session" to describe services that are analogous to
      telephone calls on a circuit switched network.  SIP reserves the
      term "dialog" to refer to a signaling-only relationship between
      User Agent peers.  SIP reserves the term "transaction" to refer to



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      the brief communication between a client and a server that lasts
      only until the final response to the SIP request.  None of these
      terms describes the entity whose performance we want to benchmark.
      For example, the MESSAGE request does not create a dialog and can
      be sent either within or outside of a dialog.  It is not
      associated with media, but it resembles a phone call in its
      dependence on human rather than machine initiated responses.  The
      SUBSCRIBE method does create a dialog between the originating end-
      user and the subscription service.  It, too, is not associated
      with a media session.

      In light of the above observations we have extended the term
      "session" to include SIP-based services that are not initiated by
      INVITE requests and that do not have associated media.  In this
      extended definition, a session always has a signaling component
      and may also have a media component.  Thus, a session can be
      defined as signaling-only or a combination of signaling and media.
      We define the term "Associated Media", see Section 3.1.4, to
      describe the situation in which media is associated with a SIP
      dialog.  The terminology "Invite-initiated Session" (IS)
      Section 3.1.8 and "Non-invite-Initiated Session" (NS)
      Section 3.1.9 are used to distinguish between these two types of
      session.  An Invite-initiated Session is a session as defined in
      SIP.  The performance of a device or system that supports Invite-
      initiated Sessions that do not create media sessions, "Invite-
      initiated Sessions without Associated Media", can be measured and
      is of interest for comparison and as a limiting case.  The
      REGISTER request can be considered to be a "Non-invite-initiated
      Session without Associated Media."  A separate set of benchmarks
      is provided for REGISTER requests since most implementations of
      SIP-based services require this request and since a registrar may
      be a device under test.

      A Session in the context of this document, can be considered to be
      a vector with three components:

      1.  A component in the signaling plane (SIP messages), sess.sig;
      2.  A media component in the media plane (RTP and SRTP streams for
          example), sess.med (which may be null);
      3.  A control component in the media plane (RTCP messages for
          example), sess.medc (which may be null).

      An IS is expected to have non-null sess.sig and sess.med
      components.  The use of control protocols in the media component
      is media dependent, thus the expected presence or absence of
      sess.medc is media dependent and test-case dependent.  An NS is
      expected to have a non-null sess.sig component, but null sess.med
      and sess.medc components.



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



      Packets in the Signaling Plane and Media Plane will be handled by
      different processes within the DUT.  They will take different
      paths within a SUT.  These different processes and paths may
      produce variations in performance.  The terminology and benchmarks
      defined in this document and the methodology for their use are
      designed to enable us to compare performance of the DUT/SUT with
      reference to the type of SIP-supported application it is handling.

      Note that one or more sessions can simultaneously exist between
      any participants.  This can be the case, for example, when the EA
      sets up both an IM and a voice call through the DUT/SUT.  These
      sessions are represented as an array session[x].

      Sessions will be represented as a vector array with three
      components, as follows:
      session->
      session[x].sig, the signaling component
      session[x].medc[y], the media control component (e.g.  RTCP)
      session[x].med[y], an array of associated media streams (e.g.
      RTP, SRTP, RTSP, MSRP).  This media component may consist of zero
      or more media streams.
      Figure 12 models the vectors of the session.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      Signaling Plane
      Associated Media
      Invite-initiated Session (IS)
      Non-invite-initiated Session (NS)















Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


                    |\
                    |
                    |   \
            sess.sig|
                    |     \
                    |
                    |       \
                    |         o
                    |        /
                    |       / |
                    |      /
                    |     /   |
                    |    /
                    |   /     |
                    |  /
                    | /       |   sess.medc
                    |/_____________________
                   /               /
                  /           |
                 /               /
     sess.med   /             |
               /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/
              /
             /
            /
           /



                       Figure 12: Session components

3.1.2.  Signaling Plane

   Definition:
      The plane in which SIP messages [RFC3261] are exchanged between
      SIP Agents [RFC3261].

   Discussion:
      SIP messages are used to establish sessions in several ways:
      directly between two User Agents [RFC3261], through a Proxy Server
      [RFC3261], or through a series of Proxy Servers.  The Session
      Description Protocol (SDP) is included in the Signaling Plane.
      The Signaling Plane for a single Session is represented by
      session.sig.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      EAs

3.1.3.  Media Plane

   Definition:
      The data plane in which one or more media streams and their
      associated media control protocols are exchanged between User
      Agents after a media connection has been created by the exchange
      of signaling messages in the Signaling Plane.

   Discussion:
      Media may also be known as the "bearer channel".  The Media Plane
      MUST include the media control protocol, if one is used, and the
      media stream(s).  Examples of media are audio and video.  The
      media streams are described in the SDP of the Signaling Plane.
      The media for a single Session is represented by session.med.  The
      media control protocol for a single media description is
      represented by session.medc.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Signaling Plane

3.1.4.  Associated Media

   Definition:
      Media that corresponds to an 'm' line in the SDP payload of the
      Signaling Plane.

   Discussion:







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      Any media protocol MAY be used.
      For any session's signaling component, session.sig, there may be
      zero, one, or multiple associated media streams.  When there are
      multiple media streams, these are represented be a vector array
      session.med[y].  When there are multiple media streams there will
      be multiple media control protocol descriptions as well.  They are
      represented by a vector array session.medc[y].

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.


3.1.5.  Overload

   Definition:
      Overload is defined as the state where a SIP server does not have
      sufficient resources to process all incoming SIP messages
      [RFC6357].

   Discussion:
      The distinction between an overload condition and other failure
      scenarios is outside the scope of black box testing and of this
      document.  Under overload conditions, all or a percentage of
      Session Attempts will fail due to lack of resources.  In black box
      testing the cause of the failure is not explored.  The fact that a
      failure occurred for whatever reason, will trigger the tester to
      reduce the offered load, as described in the companion methodology
      document, [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth].  SIP server resources
      may include CPU processing capacity, network bandwidth, input/
      output queues, or disk resources.  Any combination of resources
      may be fully utilized when a SIP server (the DUT/SUT) is in the
      overload condition.  For proxy-only type of devices, it is
      expected that the proxy will be driven into overload based on the
      delivery rate of signaling requests.
      For UA-type of network devices such as gateways, it is expected
      that the UA will be driven into overload based on the volume of
      media streams it is processing.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.








Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   Issues:
      The issue of overload in SIP networks is currently a topic of
      discussion in the SIPPING WG.  The normal response to an overload
      stimulus -- sending a 503 response -- is considered inadequate and
      new response codes and behaviors may be specified in the future.
      From the perspective of this document, all these responses will be
      considered to be failures.  There is thus no dependency between
      this document and the ongoing work on the treatment of overload
      failure.

3.1.6.  Session Attempt

   Definition:
      A SIP request sent by the EA that has not received a final
      response.

   Discussion:
      The attempted session may be Invite Initiated or Non-invite
      Initiated.  When counting the number of session attempts we
      include all INVITEs that are rejected for lack of authentication
      information.  The EA needs to record the total number of session
      attempts including those attempts that are routinely rejected by a
      proxy that requires the UA to authenticate itself.  The EA is
      provisioned to deliver a specific number of session attempts per
      second.  But the EA must also count the actual number of session
      attempts per given tie interval.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Session Attempt Rate
      Invite-initiated Session
      Non-Invite initiated Session

3.1.7.  Established Session

   Definition:
      A SIP session for which the EA acting as the UE/UA has received a
      200 OK message.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Discussion:
      An Established Session MAY be Invite Initiated or Non-invite
      Initiated.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Invite-initiated Session
      Session Attempting State
      Session Disconnecting State

3.1.8.  Invite-initiated Session (IS)

   Definition:
      A Session that is created by an exchange of messages in the
      Signaling Plane, the first of which is a SIP INVITE request.

   Discussion:
      When an IS becomes an Established Session its signaling component
      is identified by the SIP dialog parameter values, Call-ID, To-tag,
      and From-tag (RFC3261 [RFC3261]).  An IS may have zero, one or
      multiple Associated Media descriptions in the SDP body.  The
      inclusion of media is test case dependent.  An IS is successfully
      established if the following two conditions are met:
      1.  Sess.sig is established by the end of Establishment Threshold
          Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3), and
      2.  If a media session is described in the SDP body of the
          signaling message, then the media session is established by
          the end of Establishment Threshold Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3).
          An SBC or B2BUA may receive media from a calling or called
          party before a signaling dialog is established and certainly
          before a confirmed dialog is established.  The EA can be built
          in such a way that it does not send early media or it needs to
          include a parameter that indicates when it will send media.
          This parameter must be included in the list of test setup
          parameters in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth]

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Non-Invite initiated Session
      Associated Media

3.1.9.  Non-INVITE-initiated Session (NS)

   Definition:
      A session that is created by an exchange of SIP messages in the
      Signaling Plane the first of which is not a SIP INVITE message.

   Discussion:
      An NS is successfully established if the Session Attempt via a
      non- INVITE request results in the EA receiving a 2xx reply before
      the expiration of the Establishment Threshold timer (c.f.,
      Section 3.3.3).  An example of a NS is a session created by the
      SUBSCRIBE request.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Invite-initiated Session

3.1.10.  Session Attempt Failure

   Definition:
      A session attempt that does not result in an Established Session.

   Discussion:
      The session attempt failure may be indicated by the following
      observations at the EA:
      1.  Receipt of a SIP 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx class response to a Session
          Attempt.
      2.  The lack of any received SIP response to a Session Attempt
          within the Establishment Threshold Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3).







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013




   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Attempt

3.1.11.  Standing Sessions Count

   Definition:
      The number of Sessions currently established on the DUT/SUT at any
      instant.

   Discussion:
      The number of Standing Sessions is influenced by the Session
      Duration and the Session Attempt Rate.  Benchmarks MUST be
      reported with the maximum and average Standing Sessions for the
      DUT/SUT for the duration of the test.  In order to determine the
      maximum and average Standing Sessions on the DUT/SUT for the
      duration of the test it is necessary to make periodic measurements
      of the number of Standing Sessions on the DUT/SUT.  The
      recommended value for the measurement period is 1 second.  Since
      we cannot directly poll the DUT/SUT, we take the number of
      standing sessions on the DUT/SUT to be the number of distinct
      calls as measured by the number of distinct Call-IDs that the EA
      is processing at the time of measurement.  The EA must make that
      count available for viewing and recording.

   Measurement Units:
      Number of sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Duration
      Session Attempt Rate
      Session Attempt Rate
      Emulated Agent

3.2.  Test Components






Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


3.2.1.  Emulated Agent

   Definition:
      A device in the test topology that initiates/responds to SIP
      messages as one or more session endpoints and, wherever
      applicable, sources/receives Associated Media for Established
      Sessions.

   Discussion:
      The EA functions in the Signaling and Media Planes.  The Tester
      may act as multiple EAs.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      Signaling Plane
      Established Session
      Associated Media

3.2.2.  Signaling Server

   Definition:
      Device in the test topology that acts to create sessions between
      EAs.  This device is either a DUT or a component of a SUT.

   Discussion:
      The DUT MUST be an RFC 3261 capable network equipment such as a
      Registrar, Redirect Server, User Agent Server, Stateless Proxy, or
      Stateful Proxy.  A DUT MAY also include B2BUA or SBC.

   Measurement Units:
      NA

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Signaling Plane

3.2.3.  SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall






Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   Definition:
      Device in the test topology that provides protection against
      various types of security threats to which the Signaling and Media
      Planes of the EAs and Signaling Server are vulnerable.

   Discussion:
      Threats may include Denial-of-Service, theft of service and misuse
      of service.  The SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall MAY be an internal
      component or function of the Session Server.  The SIP-Aware
      Stateful Firewall MAY be a standalone device.  If it is a
      standalone device it MUST be paired with a Signaling Server.  If
      it is a standalone device it MUST be benchmarked as part of a SUT.
      SIP-Aware Stateful Firewalls MAY include Network Address
      Translation (NAT) functionality.  Ideally, the inclusion of the
      SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall in the SUT does not lower the measured
      values of the performance benchmarks.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.2.4.  SIP Transport Protocol

   Definition:
      The protocol used for transport of the Signaling Plane messages.

   Discussion:
      Performance benchmarks may vary for the same SIP networking device
      depending upon whether TCP, UDP, TLS, SCTP, or another transport
      layer protocol is used.  For this reason it MAY be necessary to
      measure the SIP Performance Benchmarks using these various
      transport protocols.  Performance Benchmarks MUST report the SIP
      Transport Protocol used to obtain the benchmark results.

   Measurement Units:
      TCP,UDP, SCTP, TLS over TCP, TLS over UDP, or TLS over SCTP

   Issues:
      None.








Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   See Also:

3.3.  Test Setup Parameters

3.3.1.  Session Attempt Rate

   Definition:
      Configuration of the EA for the number of sessions per second that
      the EA attempts to establish using the services of the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      The Session Attempt Rate is the number of sessions per second that
      the EA sends toward the DUT/SUT.  Some of the sessions attempted
      may not result in a session being established.  A session in this
      case may be either an IS or an NS.

   Measurement Units:
      Session attempts per second

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Session Attempt

3.3.2.  IS Media Attempt Rate

   Definition:
      Configuration on the EA for the rate, measured in sessions per
      second, at which the EA attempts to establish INVITE-initiated
      sessions with Associated Media, using the services of the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      An IS is not required to include a media description.  The IS
      Media Attempt Rate defines the number of media sessions we are
      trying to create, not the number of media sessions that are
      actually created.  Some attempts might not result in successful
      sessions established on the DUT.

   Measurement Units:
      session attempts per second (saps)

   Issues:







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      None.

   See Also:
      IS

3.3.3.  Establishment Threshold Time

   Definition:
      Configuration of the EA for representing the amount of time that
      an EA will wait before declaring a Session Attempt Failure.

   Discussion:
      This time duration is test dependent.
      It is RECOMMENDED that the Establishment Threshold Time value be
      set to Timer B (for ISs) or Timer F (for NSs) as specified in RFC
      3261, Table 4 [RFC3261].  Following the default value of T1
      (500ms) specified in the table and a constant multiplier of 64
      gives a value of 32 seconds for this timer (i.e., 500ms * 64 =
      32s).

   Measurement Units:
      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      session establishment failure

3.3.4.  Session Duration

   Definition:
      Configuration of the EA that represents the amount of time that
      the SIP dialog is intended to exist between the two EAs associated
      with the test.

   Discussion:
      The time at which the BYE is sent will control the Session
      Duration
      Normally the Session Duration will be the same as the Media
      Session Hold Time.  However, it is possible that the dialog
      established between the two EAs can support different media
      sessions at different points in time.  Providing both parameters
      allows the testing agency to explore this possibility.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Measurement Units:
      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Session Hold Time

3.3.5.  Media Packet Size

   Definition:
      Configuration on the EA for a fixed size of packets used for media
      streams.

   Discussion:
      For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the same size packet
      for media streams.  The size of packets can cause variation in
      performance benchmark measurements.

   Measurement Units:
      bytes

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.3.6.  Media Offered Load

   Definition:
      Configuration of the EA for the constant rate of Associated Media
      traffic offered by the EA to the DUT/SUT for one or more
      Established Sessions of type IS.

   Discussion:
      The Media Offered Load to be used for a test MUST be reported with
      three components:
      1.  per Associated Media stream;
      2.  per IS;
      3.  aggregate.
      For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the same Media
      Offered Load per Media Stream.  There may be multiple Associated
      Media streams per IS.  The aggregate is the sum of all Associated
      Media for all IS.





Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Measurement Units:
      packets per second (pps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Invite Initiated Session
      Associated Media

3.3.7.  Media Session Hold Time

   Definition:
      Parameter configured at the EA, that represents the amount of time
      that the Associated Media for an Established Session of type IS
      will last.

   Discussion:
      The Associated Media streams may be bi-directional or uni-
      directional as indicated in the test methodology.
      Normally the Media Session Hold Time will be the same as the
      Session Duration.  However, it is possible that the dialog
      established between the two EAs can support different media
      sessions at different points in time.  Providing both parameters
      allows the testing agency to explore this possibility.

   Measurement Units:
      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Associated Media
      Established Session
      Invite-initiated Session (IS)

3.3.8.  Loop Detection Option

   Definition:
      An option that causes a Proxy to check for loops in the routing of
      a SIP request before forwarding the request.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Discussion:
      This is an optional process that a SIP proxy may employ; the
      process is described under Proxy Behavior in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] in
      Section 16.3 Request Validation and that section also contains
      suggestions as to how the option could be implemented.  Any
      procedure to detect loops will use processor cycles and hence
      could impact the performance of a proxy.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.3.9.  Forking Option

   Definition:
      An option that enables a Proxy to fork requests to more than one
      destination.

   Discussion:
      This is an process that a SIP proxy may employ to find the UAS.
      The option is described under Proxy Behavior in RFC 3261 in
      Section 16.1.  A proxy that uses forking must maintain state
      information and this will use processor cycles and memory.  Thus
      the use of this option could impact the performance of a proxy and
      different implementations could produce different impacts.
      SIP supports serial or parallel forking.  When performing a test,
      the type of forking mode MUST be indicated.

   Measurement Units:
      The number of endpoints that will receive the forked invitation.
      A value of 1 indicates that the request is destined to only one
      endpoint, a value of 2 indicates that the request is forked to two
      endpoints, and so on.  This is an integer value ranging between 1
      and N inclusive, where N is the maximum number of endpoints to
      which the invitation is sent.
      Type of forking used, namely parallel or serial.

   Issues:
      None.







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   See Also:

3.4.  Benchmarks

3.4.1.  Registration Rate

   Definition:
      The maximum number of registrations that can be successfully
      completed by the DUT/SUT in a given time period without
      registration failures in that time period.

   Discussion:
      This benchmark is obtained with zero failure in which 100% of the
      registrations attempted by the EA are successfully completed by
      the DUT/SUT.  The registration rate provisioned on the Emulated
      Agent is raised and lowered as described in the algorithm in the
      companion methodology draft [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth] until a
      traffic load consisting of registrations at the given attempt rate
      over the sustained period of time identified by T in the algorithm
      completes without failure.

   Measurement Units:
      registrations per second (rps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.4.2.  Session Establishment Rate

   Definition:
      The maximum number of sessions that can be successfully completed
      by the DUT/SUT in a given time period without session
      establishment failures in that time period.

   Discussion:
      This benchmark is obtained with zero failure in which 100% of the
      sessions attempted by the Emulated Agent are successfully
      completed by the DUT/SUT.  The session attempt rate provisioned on
      the EA is raised and lowered as described in the algorithm in the
      accompanying methodology document, until a traffic load at the
      given attempt rate over the sustained period of time identified by
      T in the algorithm completes without any failed session attempts.
      Sessions may be IS or NS or a mix of both and will be defined in
      the particular test.




Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013



   Measurement Units:
      sessions per second (sps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Invite-initiated Sessions
      Non-INVITE initiated Sessions
      Session Attempt Rate

3.4.3.  Session Capacity

   Definition:
      The maximum value of Standing Sessions Count achieved by the DUT/
      SUT during a time period T in which the EA is sending session
      establishment messages at the Session Establishment Rate.

   Discussion:
      Sessions may be IS or NS.  If they are IS they can be with or
      without media.  When benchmarking Session Capacity for sessions
      with media it is required that these sessions be permanently
      established, i.e., they remain active for the duration of the
      test.  In the signaling plane, this requirement means that the
      dialog lasts as long as the test lasts.  When media is present,
      the Media Session Hold Time MUST be set to infinity so that
      sessions remain established for the duration of the test.  If the
      DUT/SUT is dialog-stateful, then we expect its performance will be
      impacted by setting Media Session Hold Time to infinity, since the
      DUT/SUT will need to allocate resources to process and store the
      state information.  The report of the Session Capacity must
      include the Session Establishment Rate at which it was measured.

   Measurement Units:
      sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Session Attempt Rate
      Session Attempt Failure







Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


3.4.4.  Session Overload Capacity

   Definition:
      The maximum number of Established Sessions that can exist
      simultaneously on the DUT/SUT until it stops responding to Session
      Attempts.

   Discussion:
      Session Overload Capacity is measured after the Session Capacity
      is measured.  The Session Overload Capacity is greater than or
      equal to the Session Capacity.  When benchmarking Session Overload
      Capacity, continue to offer Session Attempts to the DUT/SUT after
      the first Session Attempt Failure occurs and measure Established
      Sessions until there is no SIP message response for the duration
      of the Establishment Threshold.  Note that the Session
      Establishment Performance is expected to decrease after the first
      Session Attempt Failure occurs.

   Units:
      Sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Overload
      Session Capacity
      Session Attempt Failure

3.4.5.  Session Establishment Performance

   Definition:
      The percent of Session Attempts that become Established Sessions
      over the duration of a benchmarking test.

   Discussion:
      Session Establishment Performance is a benchmark to indicate
      session establishment success for the duration of a test.  The
      duration for measuring this benchmark is to be specified in the
      Methodology.  The Session Duration SHOULD be configured to
      infinity so that sessions remain established for the entire test
      duration.
      Session Establishment Performance is calculated as shown in the
      following equation:

          Session Establishment = Total Established Sessions
          Performance             --------------------------
                                  Total Session Attempts



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      Session Establishment Performance may be monitored real-time
      during a benchmarking test.  However, the reporting benchmark MUST
      be based on the total measurements for the test duration.

   Measurement Units:
      Percent (%)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Session Attempt

3.4.6.  Session Attempt Delay

   Definition:
      The average time measured at the EA for a Session Attempt to
      result in an Established Session.

   Discussion:
      Time is measured from when the EA sends the first INVITE for the
      call-ID in the case of an IS.  Time is measured from when the EA
      sends the first non-INVITE message in the case of an NS.  Session
      Attempt Delay MUST be measured for every established session to
      calculate the average.  Session Attempt Delay MUST be measured at
      the Session Establishment Rate.

   Measurement Units:
      Seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Establishment Rate

3.4.7.  IM Rate

   Definition:
      Maximum number of IM messages completed by the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      For a UAS, the definition of success is the receipt of an IM
      request and the subsequent sending of a final response.






Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


      For a UAC, the definition of success is the sending of an IM
      request and the receipt of a final response to it.  For a proxy,
      the definition of success is as follows:
      A.  the number of IM requests it receives from the upstream client
          MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it sent to the
          downstream server; and
      B.  the number of IM responses it receives from the downstream
          server MUST be equal to the number of IM requests sent to the
          downstream server; and
      C.  the number of IM responses it sends to the upstream client
          MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it received from
          the upstream client.

   Measurement Units:
      IM messages per second

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA considerations.


5.  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 [RFC3261], RFC 3550 [RFC3550], RFC3711
   [RFC3711] and various other drafts.  This document attempts to
   formalize a set of common terminology for benchmarking SIP networks.
   Packets with unintended and/or unauthorized DSCP or IP precedence
   values may present security issues.  Determining the security
   consequences of such packets is out of scope for this document.


6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Daryl
   Malas, Al Morton, and Henning Schulzrinne for invaluable
   contributions to this document.  Dale Worley provided an extensive
   review that lead to improvements in the documents.  We are grateful
   to Barry Constantine for providing valuable comments during the



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   document's WGLC.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth]
              Davids, C., Gurbani, V., and S. Poretsky, "Methodology for
              Benchmarking SIP Networking Devices",
              draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08 (work in progress),
              January 2013.

7.2.  Informational References

   [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
              Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
              interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [RFC6357]  Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design
              Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
              Overload Control", RFC 6357, August 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-control]
              Gurbani, V., Hilt, V., and H. Schulzrinne, "Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Overload Control",
              draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-11 (work in progress),



Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


              November 2012.


Appendix A.  White Box Benchmarking Terminology

   Session Attempt Arrival Rate

   Definition:
      The number of Session Attempts received at the DUT/SUT over a
      specified time period.

   Discussion:
      Sessions Attempts are indicated by the arrival of SIP INVITES OR
      SUBSCRIBE NOTIFY messages.  Session Attempts Arrival Rate
      distribution can be any model selected by the user of this
      document.  It is important when comparing benchmarks of different
      devices that same distribution model was used.  Common
      distributions are expected to be Uniform and Poisson.


   Measurement Units:
      Session attempts/sec

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Attempt


Authors' Addresses

   Carol Davids
   Illinois Institute of Technology
   201 East Loop Road
   Wheaton, IL  60187
   USA

   Phone: +1 630 682 6024
   Email: davids@iit.edu











Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft        SIP Benchmarking Terminology          January 2013


   Vijay K. Gurbani
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Rm 9C-533
   Naperville, IL  60566
   USA

   Phone: +1 630 224 0216
   Email: vkg@bell-labs.com


   Scott Poretsky
   Allot Communications
   300 TradeCenter, Suite 4680
   Woburn, MA  08101
   USA

   Phone: +1 508 309 2179
   Email: sporetsky@allot.com
































Davids, et al.            Expires July 12, 2013                [Page 38]


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