TOC 

This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The terminology is to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally observable (black box) data plane measurements. The terminology can be applied to any linkstate IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.
This InternetDraft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
InternetDrafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as InternetDrafts. The list of current InternetDrafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
InternetDrafts 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 InternetDrafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
This InternetDraft will expire on May 12, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2010 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/licenseinfo) 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.
1.
Introduction and Scope
2.
Existing Definitions
3.
Term Definitions
3.1.
Convergence Types
3.1.1.
Route Convergence
3.1.2.
Full Convergence
3.1.3.
Network Convergence
3.2.
Instants
3.2.1.
Traffic Start Instant
3.2.2.
Convergence Event Instant
3.2.3.
Convergence Recovery Instant
3.2.4.
First Route Convergence Instant
3.3.
Transitions
3.3.1.
Convergence Event Transition
3.3.2.
Convergence Recovery Transition
3.4.
Interfaces
3.4.1.
Local Interface
3.4.2.
Remote Interface
3.4.3.
Preferred Egress Interface
3.4.4.
NextBest Egress Interface
3.5.
Benchmarking Methods
3.5.1.
RateDerived Method
3.5.2.
LossDerived Method
3.5.3.
RouteSpecific LossDerived Method
3.6.
Benchmarks
3.6.1.
Full Convergence Time
3.6.2.
First Route Convergence Time
3.6.3.
RouteSpecific Convergence Time
3.6.4.
LossDerived Convergence Time
3.6.5.
Route Loss of Connectivity Period
3.6.6.
LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period
3.7.
Measurement Terms
3.7.1.
Convergence Event
3.7.2.
Packet Loss
3.7.3.
Convergence Packet Loss
3.7.4.
Connectivity Packet Loss
3.7.5.
Packet Sampling Interval
3.7.6.
Sustained Convergence Validation Time
3.7.7.
Forwarding Delay Threshold
3.8.
Miscellaneous Terms
3.8.1.
Stale Forwarding
3.8.2.
Nested Convergence Event
4.
Security Considerations
5.
IANA Considerations
6.
Acknowledgements
7.
References
7.1.
Normative References
7.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
TOC 
This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking LinkState Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Convergence. The motivation and applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po09a] (Poretsky, S., “Considerations for Benchmarking LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2009.). The methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.). The purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to complete execution of the IGP Route Methodology [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.).
IGP convergence time is measured on the data plane at the Tester by observing packet loss through the DUT. The methodology and terminology to be used for benchmarking IGP Convergence can be applied to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and linkstate IGPs such as ISIS [Ca90] (Callon, R., “Use of OSI ISIS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments,” December 1990.)[Ho08] (Hopps, C., “Routing IPv6 with ISIS,” October 2008.), OSPF [Mo98] (Moy, J., “OSPF Version 2,” April 1998.)[Co08] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, “OSPF for IPv6,” July 2008.), and others.
TOC 
This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG work. Examples include, but are not limited to:
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] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.). 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.
TOC 
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
The process of updating all components of the router, including the Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB), along with software and hardware tables, with the most recent route change(s) such that forwarding for a route entry is successful on the NextBest Egress Interface.
Discussion:
Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Route Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data traffic for a destination matching a route entry to the Nextbest Egress Interface. Completion of Route Convergence may or may not be sustained over time.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also:
Network Convergence, Full Convergence, Convergence Event
TOC 
Definition:
Route Convergence for all routes in the FIB.
Discussion:
Full Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Full Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data traffic to destinations matching all route entries to the Nextbest Egress Interface. Completion of Full Convergence is externally observable from the data plane when the Forwarding Rate of the data plane traffic on the NextBest Egress Interface equals the Offered Load.
Completion of Full Convergence may or may not be sustained over time.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also:
Network Convergence, Route Convergence, Convergence Event, Full Convergence Time, Convergence Recovery Instant
TOC 
Definition:
Full Convergence in all routers throughout the network.
Discussion:
Network Convergence includes all Route Convergence operations for all routers in the network following a Convergence Event.
Completion of Network Convergence can be observed by recovery of the network Forwarding Rate to equal the Offered Load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no Blenders [Ca01] (Casner, S., Alaettinoglu, C., and C. Kuan, “A FineGrained View of High Performance Networking,” June 2001.)[Ci03] (Ciavattone, L., Morton, A., and G. Ramachandran, “Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone,” May 2003.).
Completion of Network Convergence may or may not be sustained over time.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also:
Route Convergence, Full Convergence, Stale Forwarding
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
The time instant the Tester sends out the first data packet to the DUT.
Discussion:
If using the LossDerived Method or the RouteSpecific LossDerived Method to benchmark IGP convergence time, and the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant then the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Traffic Start Instant in order to measure the period of time between the Traffic Start Instant and Convergence Event Instant.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Event Instant, RouteSpecific Convergence Time, LossDerived Convergence Time.
TOC 
Definition:
The time instant that a Convergence Event occurs.
Discussion:
If the Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss on the Preferred Egress Interface, the Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant that the DUT begins to exhibit packet loss.
The Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Convergence Event Instant if it is not observable from the data plane.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues: None
See Also: Convergence Event
TOC 
Definition:
The time instant that Full Convergence has completed.
Discussion:
The Full Convergence completed state MUST be maintained for an interval of duration equal to the Sustained Convergence Validation Time in order to validate the Convergence Recovery Instant.
The Convergence Recovery Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant the DUT forwards traffic to all destinations over the NextBest Egress Interface.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues: None
See Also:
Sustained Convergence Validation Time, Full Convergence
TOC 
Definition:
The time instant the first route entry completes Route Convergence following a Convergence Event
Discussion:
Any route may be the first to complete Route Convergence. The First Route Convergence Instant is observable from the data plane as the instant that the first packet is received from the NextBest Egress Interface.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues: None
See Also: Route Convergence
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
A time interval following a Convergence Event in which Forwarding Rate on the Preferred Egress Interface gradually reduces to zero.
Discussion:
The Forwarding Rate during a Convergence Event Transition may not decrease linearly.
The Forwarding Rate observed on all DUT egress interfaces may or may not decrease to zero.
The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Event Transition using the RateDerived Method. This is further discussed with the term "RateDerived Method".
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Event, RateDerived Method
TOC 
Definition:
A time interval following the First Route Convergence Instant in which Forwarding Rate on the NextBest Egress Interface gradually increases to equal the Offered Load.
Discussion:
The Forwarding Rate observed during a Convergence Recovery Transition may not increase linearly.
The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery Transition using the RateDerived Method. This is further discussed with the term "RateDerived Method".
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Full Convergence,First Route Convergence Instant, RateDerived Method
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
An interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure occurred directly on the DUT.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Remote Interface
TOC 
Definition:
An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly connected to any interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure occurred on a neighbor router's interface that is not directly connected to the DUT.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Local Interface
TOC 
Definition:
The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the preferred nexthop.
Discussion:
The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior to a Convergence Event.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: NextBest Egress Interface
TOC 
Definition:
The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the secondbest nexthop.
Discussion:
The NextBest Egress Interface becomes the egress interface after a Convergence Event.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Preferred Egress Interface
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from observing Forwarding Rate each Packet Sampling Interval.
Discussion:
Figure 1 (RateDerived Convergence Graph) shows an example of the Forwarding Rate change in time during convergence as observed when using the RateDerived Method.
^ Traffic Convergence Fwd  Start Recovery Rate  Instant Instant  Offered ^ ^  Load > \ /  \ /< Convergence  \ Packet / Recovery  Convergence >\ Loss / Transition  Event \ /  Transition \/ < Max Packet Loss  +> ^ ^ time Convergence First Route Event Instant Convergence Instant
Figure 1: RateDerived Convergence Graph 
The Offered Load SHOULD consist of a single Stream [Po06] (Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, “Terminology for Benchmarking Networklayer Traffic Control Mechanisms,” October 2006.). If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for all Streams MUST be added together.
The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset of all routes can be used if required.
At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within each Packet Sampling Interval. For maximum accuracy the value for the Packet Sampling Interval SHOULD be as small as possible, but the presence of IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV) [De02] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) may enforce using a larger Packet Sampling Interval.
The Offered Load, IPDV, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the observations for the RateDerived Method. It may be difficult to identify the different convergence time instants in the RateDerived Convergence Graph. For example, it is possible that a Convergence Event causes the Forwarding Rate to drop to zero, while this may not be observed in the Forwarding Rate measurements if the Packet Sampling Interval is too large.
IPDV causes fluctuations in the number of received packets during each Packet Sampling Interval. To account for the presence of IPDV in determining if a convergence instant has been reached, Forwarding Delay SHOULD be observed during each Packet Sampling Interval. The minimum and maximum number of packets expected in a Packet Sampling Interval in presence of IPDV can be calculated with Equation 1.
number of packets expected in a Packet Sampling Interval in presence of IP Packet Delay Variation = expected number of packets without IP Packet Delay Variation +/( (maxDelay  minDelay) * Offered Load) with minDelay and maxDelay the minimum resp. maximum Forwarding Delay of packets received during the Packet Sampling Interval
Equation 1
To determine if a convergence instant has been reached the number of packets received in a Packet Sampling Interval is compared with the range of expected number of packets calculated in Equation 1.
If packets are going over multiple ECMP members and one or more of the members has failed then the number of received packets during each Packet Sampling Interval may vary, even excluding presence of IPDV. To prevent fluctuation of the number of received packets during each Packet Sampling Interval for this reason, the Packet Sampling Interval duration SHOULD be a whole multiple of the time between two consecutive packets sent to the same destination.
Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include Forwarding Rate and packet loss.
RateDerived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure convergence time benchmarks.
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp of the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe Forwarding Rate separately on the NextBest Egress Interface.
Since the RateDerived Method does not distinguish between individual traffic destinations, it SHOULD NOT be used for any route specific measurements. Therefor RateDerived Method SHOULD NOT be used to benchmark Route Loss of Connectivity Period.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also:
Packet Sampling Interval, Convergence Event, Convergence Event Instant, Full Convergence
TOC 
Definition:
The method to calculate the LossDerived Convergence Time and LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks from the amount of packet loss.
Discussion:
The Offered Load SHOULD consist of a single Stream [Po06] (Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, “Terminology for Benchmarking Networklayer Traffic Control Mechanisms,” October 2006.). If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for all Streams MUST be added together.
The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset of all routes can be used if required.
LossDerived Method SHOULD always be combined with RateDerived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss is collected after Full Convergence completion.
To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss).
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe packet loss separately on the NextBest Egress Interface (Convergence Packet Loss).
Since LossDerived Method does not distinguish between traffic destinations and the packet loss statistics are only collected after Full Convergence completion, this method can only be used to measure average values over all routes. For these reasons LossDerived Method can only be used to benchmark LossDerived Convergence Time and LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period.
Note that the LossDerived Method measures an average over all routes, including the routes that may not be impacted by the Convergence Event, such as routes via nonimpacted members of ECMP or parallel links.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
LossDerived Convergence Time, LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Packet Loss
TOC 
Definition:
The method to calculate the RouteSpecific Convergence Time benchmark from the amount of packet loss during convergence for a specific route entry.
Discussion:
To benchmark RouteSpecific Convergence Time, the Tester provides an Offered Load that consists of multiple Streams [Po06] (Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, “Terminology for Benchmarking Networklayer Traffic Control Mechanisms,” October 2006.). Each Stream has a single destination address matching a different route entry, for all routes or a statistically representative subset of all routes. Convergence Packet Loss is measured for each Stream separately.
RouteSpecific LossDerived Method SHOULD always be combined with RateDerived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss for each Stream is collected after Full Convergence completion.
RouteSpecific LossDerived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure convergence time benchmarks.
To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss).
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe packet loss separately on the NextBest Egress Interface (Convergence Packet Loss).
Since RouteSpecific LossDerived Method uses traffic streams to individual routes, it measures packet loss as it would be experienced by a network user. For this reason RouteSpecific LossDerived Method is RECOMMENDED to measure RouteSpecific Convergence Time benchmarks and Route Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
RouteSpecific Convergence Time, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Packet Loss
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
The time duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant as observed using the RateDerived Method.
Discussion:
Using the RateDerived Method, Full Convergence Time can be calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown in Equation 2.
Full Convergence Time = Convergence Recovery Instant  Convergence Event Instant
Equation 2
The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester.
For the testcases described in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.), it is expected that Full Convergence Time equals the maximum RouteSpecific Convergence Time when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the RouteSpecific LossDerived Method.
It is not possible to measure Full Convergence Time using the LossDerived Method.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Full Convergence, RateDerived Method, RouteSpecific LossDerived Method
TOC 
Definition:
The duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant as observed using the RateDerived Method.
Discussion:
Using the RateDerived Method, First Route Convergence Time can be calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant, as shown with Equation 3.
First Route Convergence Time = First Route Convergence Instant  Convergence Event Instant
Equation 3
The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester.
For the testcases described in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.), it is expected that First Route Convergence Time equals the minimum RouteSpecific Convergence Time when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the RouteSpecific LossDerived Method.
It is not possible to measure First Route Convergence Time using the LossDerived Method.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
RateDerived Method, RouteSpecific LossDerived Method, First Route Convergence Instant
TOC 
Definition:
The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to be completed for a specific route, as calculated from the amount of packet loss during convergence for a single route entry.
Discussion:
RouteSpecific Convergence Time can only be measured using the RouteSpecific LossDerived Method.
If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and NextBest Egress Interface. When benchmarking RouteSpecific Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 4 is applied for each measured route. The calculation is equal to Equation 8 in Section 3.6.5 (Route Loss of Connectivity Period).
RouteSpecific Convergence Time = Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route
Equation 4
If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Traffic Start Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the NextBest Egress Interface. When benchmarking RouteSpecific Convergence Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 5 is applied for each measured route.
RouteSpecific Convergence Time = Convergence Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route  (Convergence Event Instant  Traffic Start Instant)
Equation 5
The Convergence Event Instant and Traffic Start Instant SHOULD be collected by the Tester.
The RouteSpecific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum, maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be reported by comparing the results for the different route entries. It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when configuring a priority value for route entry(ies). Since multiple RouteSpecific Convergence Times can be measured it is possible to have an array of results. The format for reporting RouteSpecific Convergence Time is provided in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.).
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Event, Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route Convergence
TOC 
Definition:
The average Route Convergence time for all routes in FIB, as calculated from the amount of packet loss during convergence.
Discussion:
LossDerived Convergence Time is measured using the LossDerived Method.
If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and NextBest Egress Interface. When benchmarking LossDerived Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 6 is applied.
LossDerived Convergence Time = Connectivity Packet Loss/Offered Load
Equation 6
If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the NextBest Egress Interface. When benchmarking LossDerived Convergence Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 7 is applied.
LossDerived Convergence Time = Convergence Packet Loss/Offered Load  (Convergence Event Instant  Traffic Start Instant)
Equation 7
The Convergence Event Instant and Traffic Start Instant SHOULD be collected by the Tester.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route Convergence
TOC 
Definition:
The time duration of traffic loss for a specific route entry following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as observed using the RouteSpecific LossDerived Method.
Discussion:
In general the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to the RouteSpecific Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the Convergence Event is applied then the Route Loss of Connectivity Period will be smaller than the RouteSpecific Convergence Time. This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure event.
The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the RouteSpecific Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.).
For the testcases described in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.) the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period [Ko02] (Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, “Oneway Loss Pattern Sample Metrics,” August 2002.).
When benchmarking Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for each route and Equation 8 is applied for each measured route entry. The calculation is equal to Equation 4 in Section 3.6.3 (RouteSpecific Convergence Time).
Route Loss of Connectivity Period = Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route
Equation 8
Route Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using RouteSpecific LossDerived Method.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
RouteSpecific Convergence Time, RouteSpecific LossDerived Method, Connectivity Packet Loss
TOC 
Definition:
The average time duration of traffic loss for all routes following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as observed using the LossDerived Method.
Discussion:
In general the LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to the LossDerived Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the Convergence Event is applied then the LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period will be smaller than the LossDerived Convergence Time. This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure event.
The LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the LossDerived Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.).
For the testcases described in [Po10m] (Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” March 2010.) each route's Route Loss of Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period [Ko02] (Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, “Oneway Loss Pattern Sample Metrics,” August 2002.).
When benchmarking LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period, Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for all routes and Equation 9 is applied. The calculation is equal to Equation 6 in Section 3.6.4 (LossDerived Convergence Time).
LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period = Connectivity Packet Loss for all routes/Offered Load
Equation 9
LossDerived Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using LossDerived Method.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
LossDerived Convergence Time, LossDerived Method, Connectivity Packet Loss
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
The occurrence of a planned or unplanned event in the network that will result in a change in the egress interface of the Device Under Test (DUT) for routed packets.
Discussion:
Convergence Events include but are not limited to link loss, routing protocol session loss, router failure, configuration change, and better nexthop learned via a routing protocol.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Convergence Event Instant
TOC 
Definition:
The number of packets that should have been forwarded by a DUT under a constant Offered Load that were not forwarded due to lack of resources.
Discussion:
Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate" as defined in [Br91] (Bradner, S., “Benchmarking terminology for network interconnection devices,” July 1991.). The term "Frame Loss" is intended for Ethernet Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets.
Measurement units: Number of offered packets that are not forwarded.
Issues: None
See Also: Convergence Packet Loss
TOC 
Definition:
The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completes, as observed on the NextBest Egress Interface.
Discussion:
Convergence Packet Loss is observed on the NextBest Egress Interface. It only needs to be observed for Convergence Events that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss at Convergence Event Instant.
Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. The maximum acceptable Forwarding Delay (Forwarding Delay Threshold) is a parameter of the methodology, if it is applied it MUST be reported.
Measurement Units: number of packets
Issues: None
See Also:
Packet Loss, Full Convergence, Convergence Event, Connectivity Packet Loss
TOC 
Definition:
The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completes.
Discussion:
Connectivity Packet Loss is observed on all DUT egress interfaces.
Connectivity Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets that were delayed due to buffering. The maximum acceptable Forwarding Delay (Forwarding Delay Threshold) is a parameter of the methodology, if it is applied it MUST be reported.
Measurement Units: number of packets
Issues: None
See Also:
Packet Loss, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Event, Convergence Packet Loss
TOC 
Definition:
The interval at which the Tester (test equipment) polls to make measurements for arriving packets.
Discussion:
At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling Interval. Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include Forwarding Rate and received packets.
Packet Sampling Interval can influence the convergence graph as observed with the RateDerived Method. This is particularly true when implementations complete Full Convergence in less time than the Packet Sampling Interval. The Convergence Event Instant and First Route Convergence Instant may not be easily identifiable and the RateDerived Method may produce a larger than actual convergence time.
Using a small Packet Sampling Interval in the presence of IPDV [De02] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) may cause fluctuations of the Forwarding Rate observation and can prevent correct observation of the different convergence time instants.
The value of the Packet Sampling Interval only contributes to the measurement accuracy of the RateDerived Method. For maximum accuracy the value for the Packet Sampling Interval SHOULD be as small as possible, but the presence of IPDV may enforce using a larger Packet Sampling Interval.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also: RateDerived Method
TOC 
Definition:
The amount of time for which the completion of Full Convergence is maintained without additional packet loss.
Discussion:
The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to produce convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation in Forwarding Rate after the completion of Full Convergence is observed. The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation Time to be used is the time to send 5 consecutive packets to each destination with a minimum of 5 seconds. The BMWG selected 5 seconds based upon [Br99] (Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, “Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices,” March 1999.) which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to arrive (this is the Forwarding Delay Threshold for the last packet sent) and 5 seconds for DUT restabilization.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Full Convergence, Convergence Recovery Instant
TOC 
Definition:
The maximum waiting time threshold used to distinguish between packets with very long delay and lost packets that will never arrive.
Discussion:
Applying a Forwarding Delay Threshold allows to consider packets with a too large Forwarding Delay as being lost, as is required for some applications (e.g. voice, video, etc.). The Forwarding Delay Threshold is a parameter of the methodology, if it is applied it MUST be reported.
Measurement Units: seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss
TOC 
TOC 
Definition:
Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist or to route entries with nexthops that are no longer preferred.
Discussion:
Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and can manifest as a "blackhole" or microloop that produces packet loss, or outoforder packets, or delayed packets. Stale Forwarding can exist until Network Convergence is completed.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Network Convergence
TOC 
Definition:
The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route table is converging from a prior Convergence Event.
Discussion:
The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event MUST occur with different neighbors. A possible observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the routes of another neighbor are being installed.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also: Convergence Event
TOC 
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 "blackbox" 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.
TOC 
This document requires no IANA considerations.
TOC 
Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward, Peter De Vriendt, Anuj Dewagan and the BMWG for their contributions to this work.
TOC 
TOC 
[Br91]  Bradner, S., “Benchmarking terminology for network interconnection devices,” RFC 1242, July 1991 (TXT). 
[Br97]  Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). 
[Br99]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, “Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices,” RFC 2544, March 1999 (TXT). 
[Ca90]  Callon, R., “Use of OSI ISIS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments,” RFC 1195, December 1990 (TXT, PS). 
[Co08]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, “OSPF for IPv6,” RFC 5340, July 2008 (TXT). 
[De02]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” RFC 3393, November 2002 (TXT). 
[Ho08]  Hopps, C., “Routing IPv6 with ISIS,” RFC 5308, October 2008 (TXT). 
[Ko02]  Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, “Oneway Loss Pattern Sample Metrics,” RFC 3357, August 2002 (TXT). 
[Ma98]  Mandeville, R., “Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices,” RFC 2285, February 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML). 
[Mo06]  Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, “Packet Reordering Metrics,” RFC 4737, November 2006 (TXT). 
[Mo98]  Moy, J., “OSPF Version 2,” STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML). 
[Po06]  Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, “Terminology for Benchmarking Networklayer Traffic Control Mechanisms,” RFC 4689, October 2006 (TXT). 
[Po09a]  Poretsky, S., “Considerations for Benchmarking LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvapp17 (work in progress), March 2009 (TXT). 
[Po10m]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, “Benchmarking Methodology for LinkState IGP Data Plane Route Convergence,” draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvmeth20 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT). 
TOC 
[Ca01]  Casner, S., Alaettinoglu, C., and C. Kuan, “A FineGrained View of High Performance Networking,” NANOG 22, June 2001. 
[Ci03]  Ciavattone, L., Morton, A., and G. Ramachandran, “Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone,” IEEE Communications Magazine p9097, May 2003. 
TOC 
Scott Poretsky  
Allot Communications  
67 South Bedford Street, Suite 400  
Burlington, MA 01803  
USA  
Phone:  + 1 508 309 2179 
Email:  sporetsky@allot.com 
Brent Imhoff  
Juniper Networks  
1194 North Mathilda Ave  
Sunnyvale, CA 94089  
USA  
Phone:  + 1 314 378 2571 
Email:  bimhoff@planetspork.com 
Kris Michielsen  
Cisco Systems  
6A De Kleetlaan  
Diegem, BRABANT 1831  
Belgium  
Email:  kmichiel@cisco.com 