Network Working Group
   INTERNET-DRAFT
   Expires in: October 2005 January 2006
                                                   Scott Poretsky
                                                   Quarry Technologies
                                                   Reef Point Systems

						   Shankar Rao
						   Qwest Communications

                                                   February

                                                   July 2005

  	             Methodology Guidelines for
                   Accelerated Stress Benchmarking
              	<draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-02.txt>
                <draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-03.txt>

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am he or she is aware
have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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

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

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

   ABSTRACT
   Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
   multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
   being managed.  To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
   necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous
   operational conditions, which is known as Stress Testing.  This
   document provides the Methodology Guidelines for performing Stress
   Benchmarking of networking devices.  Descriptions of Test Topology,
   Benchmarks and Reporting Format are provided in addition to procedures
   for conducting various test cases.  The methodology is to be used with
   the companion terminology document [4].  These guidelines can be used
   as the basis for additional methodology documents that benchmark
   specific network technologies under accelerated stress.

   Table of Contents
     1. Introduction ............................................... 2
     2. Existing definitions ....................................... 3
     3. Test Setup.................................................. 3
     3.1 Test Topologies............................................ 3
     3.2 Test Considerations........................................ 3
     3.3 Reporting Format........................................... 4
     3.3.1 Configuration Sets....................................... 5
     3.3.2 Startup Conditions....................................... 6
     3.3.3 Instability Conditions................................... 6
     3.3.3
     3.3.4 Benchmarks............................................... 6 7
     4. Example Test Cases.................................................. 7
     4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer................................... Case Procedure................................. 7
     4.2 Establish New EBGP Peer.................................... 8
     4.3 BGP Route Explosion........................................ 8
     4.4 BGP Policy Configuration................................... 9
     4.5 Persistent BGP Flapping.................................... 9
     4.6 BGP Route Flap Dampening...................................10
     4.7 Nested Convergence Events..................................11
     4.8 Restart Under Load.........................................12
     4.9 Destination Control Processor..............................12
     4.10 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting..........13
     4.11 Destination Interfaces....................................13
     4.12 DoS Attack................................................14
     5. Security Considerations.....................................14 Considerations..................................... 9
     6. Normative References........................................14 References........................................ 9
     7. Normative References........................................15 Informative References......................................10
     8. Author's Address............................................15 Address............................................10

   1. Introduction
   Router testing benchmarks have consistently been made in a monolithic
   fashion wherein a single protocol or behavior is measured in an
   isolated environment.  It is important to know the limits for a
   networking device's behavior for each protocol in isolation, however
   this does not produce a reliable benchmark of the device's behavior
   in an operational network.

   Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
   multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic
   and being managed.  To accurately benchmark a router for deployment
   it is necessary to test that router in operational conditions by
   simultaneously configuring and scaling network protocols and security
   policies, forwarding traffic, and managing the device.  It is helpful
   to accelerate these network operational conditions with Instability
   Conditions [4] so that the networking devices are stress tested.

   This document provides the Methodology for performing Stress
   Benchmarking of networking devices.  Descriptions of Test Topology,
   Benchmarks and Reporting Format are provided in addition to
   procedures for conducting various test cases.  The methodology is
   to be used with the companion terminology document [4].

   Stress Testing of networking devices provides the following benefits:
   	1. Evaluation of multiple protocols enabled simultaneously as
      	configured in deployed networks
   	2. Evaluation of System and Software Stability
   	3. Evaluation of Manageability under stressful conditions
	4. Identification of Buffer Overflow conditions
   	5. Identification of Software Coding bugs such as:
		a. Memory Leaks
		b. Suboptimal CPU Utilization
		c. Coding Logic
   These benefits produce significant advantages for network operations:
	1.  Increased stability of routers and protocols
	2.  Hardened routers to DoS attacks
	3.  Verified manageability under stress
	4.  Planning router resources for growth and scale

   2.  Existing definitions
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [Br97].
   [6].  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.

   Terms related to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [4].

   3. Test Setup
   3.1 Test Topologies
   Figure 1 shows the physical configuration to be used for the
   methodologies provided in this document.  The number of interfaces
   between the tester and DUT will scale depending upon the number of
   control protocol sessions and traffic forwarding interfaces.  A
   separate device may be required to externally manage the device in
   the case that the test equipment does not support such
   functionality.  Figure 2 shows the logical configuration for the
   stress test methodologies.  Each plane may be emulated by single or
   multiple test equipment.

   3.2 Test Considerations
   The Accelerated Stress Benchmarking test can be applied in
   service provider test environments to benchmark DUTs under
   stress in an environment that is reflective of an operational
   network.  A particular Configuration Set is defined and the
   DUT is benchmarked using this configuration set and the
   Instability Conditions.  Varying Configuration Sets and/or
   Instability Conditions applied in an iterative fashion can
   provide an accurate characterization of the DUT
   to help determine future network deployments.

				 ___________
				|   DUT     |
			     ___|Management |
			    |	|   	    |
	 		    |	 -----------
		           \/
		      ___________
		     |	     	 |
		     |    DUT    |
		|--->|	     	 |<---|
	 xN	|     -----------     |    xN
     interfaces	|		      | interfaces
		|     ___________     |
		|    |       	 |    |
		|--->|   Tester  |<---|
		     |   	 |
	 	      -----------

		Figure 1. Physical Configuration

	 ___________		 ___________
	|  Control  |		| Management|
	|   Plane   |___     ___|   Plane   |
	|   	    |   |   |	|   	    |
	 -----------    |   |	 -----------
		       \/  \/		       ___________
		      ___________	      | Security  |
		     |	     	 |<-----------|   Plane	  |
		     |    DUT    |	      |           |
		|--->|	     	 |<---|        -----------
	 	|     -----------     |
		|		      |
		|     ___________     |
		|    |   Data    |    |
		|--->|   Plane   |<---|
		     |   	 |
	 	      -----------

		Figure 2. Logical Configuration

   3.3 Reporting Format

   Each methodology requires reporting of information for test
   repeatability when benchmarking the same or different devices.
   The information that are the Configuration Sets, Instability
   Conditions, and Benchmarks, as defined in [4].  Example
   reporting formats for each are provided below.

   3.3.1 Configuration Sets

   Configuration Sets may include and are not limited to the following
   examples.

    Example Routing Protocol Configuration Set-
	   PARAMETER				UNITS
  	   BGP					Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of EBGP Peers			Peers
	   Number of IBGP Peers			Peers
	   Number of BGP Route Instances	Routes
	   Number of BGP Installed Routes	Routes
 	   MBGP					Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of MBGP Route Instances	Routes
	   Number of MBGP Installed Routes	Routes
	   IGP					Enabled/Disabled
	   IGP-TE				Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of IGP Adjacencies		Adjacencies
	   Number of IGP Routes			Routes
	   Number of Nodes per Area		Nodes

    Example MPLS Protocol Configuration Set-
	   PARAMETER				UNITS
	   MPLS-TE                          Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of Ingress Tunnels		Tunnels
	   Number of Mid-Point Tunnels	Tunnels
	   Number of Egress Tunnels		Tunnels
	   LDP                              Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of Sessions			Sessions
	   Number of FECs			FECs

    Example Multicast Protocol Configuration Set-
   	   PARAMETER				UNITS
	   PIM-SM				Enabled/Disabled
	   RP					Enabled/Disabled
	   Number of Multicast Groups		Groups
	   MSDP					Enabled/Disabled

    Example Data Plane Configuration Set-
	   PARAMETER				UNITS
	   Traffic Forwarding			Enabled/Disabled
	   Aggregate Offered Load		bps (or pps)
	   Number of Ingress Interfaces		number
	   Number of Egress Interfaces		number

	   TRAFFIC PROFILE
	   Packet Size(s)		bytes
	   Packet Rate(interface)
	   Offered Load (interface)	array of packets per second bps
	   Number of Flows		number
	   Encapsulation(flow)		array of encapsulation type
   Management Configuration Set-
	PARAMETER				UNITS
	SNMP GET Rate				SNMP Gets/minute
	Logging					Enabled/Disabled
	Protocol Debug				Enabled/Disabled
	Telnet Rate				Sessions/Hour
	FTP Rate				Sessions/Hour
	Concurrent Telnet Sessions		Sessions
	Concurrent FTP Session			Sessions
	Packet Statistics Collector		Enabled/Disabled
	Statistics Sampling Rate		X:1 packets

   Security Configuration Set -
	PARAMETER				UNITS
	Packet Filters				Enabled/Disabled
	Number of Filters For-Me		number
	Number of Filter Rules For-Me		number
	Number of Traffic Filters 		number
	Number of Traffic Filter Rules		number
        IPsec tunnels				number
        SSH					Enabled/Disabled
	Number of simultaneous SSH sessions	number
	RADIUS					Enabled/Disabled
	TACACS					Enabled/Disabled

   3.3.2 Startup Conditions
   Startup Conditions may include and are not limited to the following
   examples:
	PARAMETER				UNITS
        EBGP peering sessions negotiated        Total EBGP Sessions
        IBGP peering sessions negotiated        Total IBGP Sessions
        BGP routes learned rate                 BGP Routes per Second
        ISIS adjacencies established            Total ISIS Adjacencies
        ISIS routes learned rate                ISIS Routes per Second
        IPsec tunnels negotiated                Total IPsec Tunnels
        IPsec tunnel establishment rate         IPsec tunnels per second

   3.3.3 Instability Conditions
   Instability Conditions may include and are not limited to the
   following examples:
	PARAMETER				UNITS
	Interface Shutdown Cycling Rate		interfaces per minute
	BGP Session Flap Rate			sessions per minute
	BGP Route Flap Rate			routes per minutes
	IGP Route Flap Rate			routes per minutes
	LSP Reroute Rate			LSP per minute
	Overloaded Links			number
	Amount Links Overloaded 		% of bandwidth
	FTP Rate				Mb/minute
	IPsec Session Loss			sessions Tunnel Flap Rate 			tunnels per minute
	Filter Policy Changes			policies per hour
	SSH Session Restart			SSH sessions per hour
        Telnet Session Restart                  Telnet session per hour

   3.3.3
   3.3.4 Benchmarks

   Benchmarks are as defined in [1] and listed as follow:

   	PARAMETER				UNITS     PHASE
   	Stable Aggregate Forwarding Rate	pps       Startup
        Stable Latency                          seconds   Startup
   	Stable Session Count			sessions  Startup
   	Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate	pps       Instability
   	Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate	pps       Instability
   	Ave. Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate	pps       Instability
        Unstable Latency                        seconds   Instability
   	Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost	sessions  Instability
   	Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate	pps       Recovery
	Recovered Latency                       seconds   Recovery
   	Recovery Time 				seconds   Recovery
   	Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost	sessions  Recovery
   It is RECOMMENDED that Aggregate Forwarding Rates, Latencies, and
   Session Losses be measured at one-second intervals.  These same
   benchmarks can also be used as Variability Benchmarks reported as
   the differences between the Benchmarks for multiple iterations
   with the same DUT.  For the purpose of the Variability Benchmarks,
   A more complete characterization of the DUT would be to apply
   multiple test iterations for the same Configuration Sets and
   Instability Conditions, measure the Variability Benchmarks, and
   then vary the Configuration Set and/or Instability Conditions.

   4. Example Test Cases

   4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer

	Objective
	The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
	of the DUT during stress conditions when losing an EBGP
	Peer from which most FIB routes have been learned. Case Procedure
	1. Report Configuration Set
	2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
	3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
	4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
	5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Remove link to

           BGP Enabled
           10 EBGP peer with most Peers
           30 IBGP Peers
           500K BGP Route Instances
	   160K BGP FIB routes.  This SHOULD
           be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity with
           a local fiber pull.  Loss of the peering session SHOULD
           cause the DUT to withdraw 100,000 or greater routes.
	7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
	8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
	9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
	10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
	   Conditions for next iteration

	Results
	It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
	until the DUT converges from the lost EBGP link.  Other DUT
	operation should be stable without session loss or sustained
	packet loss.  Recovery time should not be infinite.

   4.2 Establish New EBGP Peer

	Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when establishing a
        new EBGP Peer from which routes are learned.

	Procedure
	1. Report Configuration Set Routes

	   ISIS Enabled
	   ISIS-TE Disabled
	   30 ISIS Adjacencies
	   10K ISIS Level-1 Routes
	   250 ISIS Nodes per Area

           MPLS Disabled
           IP Multicast Disabled

           IPsec Enabled
           10K IPsec tunnels
	   640 Firewall Policies
           100 Firewall Rules per Policy

	   Traffic Forwarding Enabled
	   Aggregate Offered Load 10Gbps
	   30 Ingress Interfaces
	   30 Egress Interfaces
           Packet Size(s) = 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 bytes
           Forwarding Rate[1..30] = 1Gbps
           10000 Flows
           Encapsulation[1..5000] = IPv4
           Encapsulation[5001.10000] = IPsec
	   Logging Enabled
           Protocol Debug Disabled
           SNMP Enabled
           SSH Enabled
           20 Concurrent SSH Sessions
           FTP Enabled
           RADIUS Enabled
           TACACS Disabled
           Packet Statistics Collector Enabled

	2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT

           10 EBGP peering sessions negotiated
           30 EBGP peering sessions negotiated
           1K BGP routes learned per second
           30 ISIS Adjacencies
           1K ISIS routes learned per second
           10K IPsec tunnels negotiated

	3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT

	4. Report Stability Benchmarks as follow:

   	   Stable Aggregate Forwarding Rate
           Stable Latency
           Stable Session Count

           It is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarks (for stability) be measured and
           recorded at one-second intervals.

	5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Configure a new EBGP peering session at DUT and peering router.
           Physical and Data Link Layer connectivity SHOULD already exist
           to perform this step.  Establishment of the peering

	   Interface Shutdown Cycling Rate = 1 interface every 5 minutes
	   BGP Session Flap Rate = 1 session
	   MUST result in the DUT learning 100,000 or greater routes from
           the every 10 minutes
	   BGP peer and advertising 100,000 or greater Route Flap Rate = 100 routes to
           the BGP peer
	7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
	8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
	9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
	10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
	   Conditions for next iteration

	Results
        It is expected that there will be zero packet loss as the DUT
        learns the new routes.  Other DUT operation should be stable
        without session loss or sustained packet loss.

   4.3 BGP Route Explosion

	Objective
	The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
	of the DUT during stress conditions when there is BGP per minute
	   ISIS Route
	Explosion experienced in the network.

	Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Advertise 1M BGP routes to the DUT from a single EBGP
           neighbor.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including BGP route
           advertisement.
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
	   Conditions for next iteration
	Results
	It is expected that there will be no additional packet loss from
	the advertisement of Flap Rate = 100 routes from the BGP neighbor.  Other
	DUT operation should be stable without session loss.

   4.4 BGP Policy Configuration

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when there is continuous
        reconfiguration of BGP Policy at the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Configure BGP Policy on the DUT for each established neighbor.
           The BGP Policy SHOULD filter 25% per minute
	   IPsec Tunnel Flap Rate = 1 tunnel per minute
 	   Overloaded Links = 5 of the routes learned from
           that neighbor.  Note that the specific policy configuration
           to achieve the filtering may be device specific.
        7. Every 30 minutes remove the BGP Policy configuration and then
           configure it gain so that it is reapplied.
        8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including Policy
           changes
        10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        11. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
	   Conditions for next iteration

	Results
        It is expected that there will be no packet loss resulting from
        the continuous configuration and removal of BGP Policy for BGP
        neighbors.  Other DUT operation should be stable without session
        loss.

   4.5 Persistent BGP Flapping

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
        sessions for an infinite period.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
           This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
           via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 180 seconds with
           a delay of 10 seconds between the shut and no shut.
           The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
           100,000 or greater routes that are re-learned when the session
           re-establishes.   Route Flap Dampening SHOULD NOT be enabled.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including flapping
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
        from repeated Convergence Events.  Other DUT operation should be
        stable without session loss.  Recovery time should not be infinite.

     4.6 BGP Route Flap Dampening

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
        sessions for an infinite period and route flap dampening is
        enabled.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
	2. Configure Route Flap Dampening on the DUT with DEFAULT parameter
           values.
        3. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        4. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        5. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        6. Apply Instability Conditions
        7. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
           This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
           via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 180 seconds with
           a delay of 10 seconds between the shut and no shut.
           The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
           100,000 or greater routes that are re-learned when the session
           re-establishes.
        8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
        10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        11. Optional - Change Route Flap Dampening parameter values
        12. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration
        Results
        It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
        from repeated Convergence Events and flap dampening.  Other DUT operation
        should be stable without session loss.  Recovery time should not be infinite.

     4.7 Nested Convergence Events [5]

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
        sessions causes Nested Convergence Events.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session.
           This SHOULD be achieved by losing physical layer connectivity
           via a local interface shutdown/no shutdown every 10 seconds with
           a delay of 1 second between the shut and no shut.
           The loss of the EBGP peering session MUST cause the DUT to withdraw
           100,000 or greater routes that are re-learned when the session
           re-establishes.   Route Flap Dampening SHOULD NOT be enabled.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including flapping
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
        from Nested Convergence Events.  New Other DUT operation should be
        stable without session loss.  Recovery time should not be infinite.

     4.8 Restart Under Load

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the DUT
        during restart when stress conditions are applied.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Restart DUT. This marks the beginning on the recovery period.
        6. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        7. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
           Conditions for next iteration
        NOTE 1:
	   Amount Links Overloaded = 20%
           SNMP GETs = 1 per sec
           SSH Restart via the DUT's  Command Line Interface rather than
                power cycle is typically more stressful than power cycle
                since hardware can maintain state.
        NOTE 2: Instability Conditions are not applied for this test case.

        Results
        DUT should re-establish all control protocol sessions and have
        a Recovery Time [4] that is not infinite.

     4.9 Destination Control Processor

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the Control Processor of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so that the
           offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
           control processor
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
        It is possible that significant session loss is observed.

     4.10 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the Control processor of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Apply policy filter to rate-limit traffic arriving at the Central
           Processor to be only 1% of the offered load.
        3. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        4. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        5. Report benchmarks (for stability) Rate = 10 sessions per hour
           FTP Restart Rate = 10 transfers per hour
	   FTP Transfer Rate = 100 Mbps
           Statistics Sampling Rate = 1:1 packets

        6. Apply Instability Conditions
        7. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so that the
           offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
           control processor
        8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        11. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        Results will vary with Condition specific vendor implementations.  There should be
        no session loss observed.

     4.11 Destination Interfaces
        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the interfaces of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        4. test case.

	7. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so Benchmarks as follow:
           Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate
           Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate
           Ave. Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate
           Unstable Latency
           Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost

           It is RECOMMENDED that the
           offered load has destination addresses of the interfaces receiving
           traffic.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability) be measured and
           recorded at one-second intervals.

	8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration
        Results
        Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
        There should be no session loss observed.

     4.12 DoS Attack

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the
        DUT during stress conditions while experiencing a DoS attack.

	Procedure
	1. Report Configuration Set
	2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
	3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
	4.

	9. Report benchmarks (for stability)
	5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Initiate DoS Attack against DUT. Recovery Benchmarks as follow:

           Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate
           Recovered Latency
           Recovery Time
           Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost

           It is RECOMMENDED that the SYN Flood attack be used for the DoS attack.
	7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
	8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
	9. Report benchmarks (for recovery) be measured and
           recorded at one-second intervals.

	10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
	   Conditions for next iteration

	Results
	DUT should be able to defend against DoS attack without additional
	packet loss or session loss.

   5. Security Considerations
        Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
        the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
        is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
        networks.

   6. Normative References

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

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

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

      [4]   Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
	    Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-05,
	    work in progress, February July 2005.

      [5]   Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Data Plane
	    Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-05, draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-06,
	    work in progress, February July 2005.

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

   7. Informative References

      [RFC3871]  RFC 3871 "Operational Security Requirements for Large
            Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure.
            G. Jones, Ed.. IETF, September 2004.

      [NANOG25]   "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability", Scott
	    Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.

      [IEEECQR]   "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for Network
	    Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.

      [CONVMETH]   Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
	    Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-05,
	    work in progress, February July 2005.

   8. Author's Address

      	Scott Poretsky
   	Quarry Technologies
        Reef Point Systems
  	8 New England Executive Park
   	Burlington, MA 01803
    	USA
    	Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
   	EMail: sporetsky@quarrytech.com sporetsky@reefpoint.com

	Shankar Rao
	950 17th
	1801 California Street
	Suite 1900
	8th Floor
	Qwest Communications
	Denver, CO 80210 80202
	USA
	Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
	Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

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

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

Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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

Disclaimer of Warranty

This document and ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

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

Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document RFC Editor function is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, currently provided by the authors retain all their rights.
   Internet Society.