draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-00.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt 
Benchmarking Working Group R. Papneja Benchmarking Working Group R. Papneja
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track B. Parise Intended status: Standards Track B. Parise
Expires: January 2, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: September 2, 2014 Cisco Systems
S. Hares S. Hares
Adara Networks Adara Networks
D. Lee D. Lee
IXIA IXIA
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Easynet Global Services Easynet Global Services
July 2013 Mar 2014
Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane
Convergence Convergence
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-00.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the
default Inter AS routing protocol. It is of utmost importance to default Inter AS routing protocol. It is of utmost importance to
ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails, ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails,
the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate
paths are installed. This document provides the basic BGP paths are installed. This document provides the basic BGP
Benchmarking Methodology using existing BGP Convergence Terminology, Benchmarking Methodology using existing BGP Convergence Terminology,
RFC 4098. RFC 4098.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
4.2. Number of Routes per Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Number of Routes per Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Policy Processing/Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Policy Processing/Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..) . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..) . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Interface Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. Interface Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Measurement Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6. Measurement Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. Measurement Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.7. Measurement Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9. Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.9. Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.10. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.10. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Basic Convergence Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. Basic Convergence Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1. RIB-IN Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.1. RIB-IN Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2. RIB-OUT Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.2. RIB-OUT Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.3. eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.3. eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.4. iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.4. iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. BGP Failure/Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. BGP Failure/Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1. Physical Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.1. Physical Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.2. Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End . . . . . 19 5.2.2. Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End . . . . . 19
5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on 5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on
skipping to change at page 12, line 44 skipping to change at page 12, line 44
Availability) solutions available from different vendors, it is Availability) solutions available from different vendors, it is
RECOMMENDED that any redundancy available in the routing processors RECOMMENDED that any redundancy available in the routing processors
should be disabled during the convergence measurements. should be disabled during the convergence measurements.
5. Test Cases 5. Test Cases
All tests defined under this section assume the following: All tests defined under this section assume the following:
a. BGP peers should be brought to BGP Peer established state a. BGP peers should be brought to BGP Peer established state
b. Furthermore the traffic generation and routing should be verified b. BGP peers should be brought down and reestablished between each
in the topology test iteration. This is recommended to ensure each test
iteration starts with a clean state.
c. Furthermore the traffic generation and routing should be verified
in the topology to ensure there is no packet loss observed on any
advertised routes
5.1. Basic Convergence Tests 5.1. Basic Convergence Tests
These test cases measure characteristics of a BGP implementation in These test cases measure characteristics of a BGP implementation in
non-failure scenarios like: non-failure scenarios like:
1. RIB-IN Convergence 1. RIB-IN Convergence
2. RIB-OUT Convergence 2. RIB-OUT Convergence
skipping to change at page 32, line 32 skipping to change at page 32, line 32
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks. networks.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anil Tandon, Arvind Pandey, Mohan Nanduri, Jay We would like to thank Anil Tandon, Arvind Pandey, Mohan Nanduri, Jay
Karthik and Eric Brendel, for their input and discussions on various Karthik, Eric Brendel for their input and discussions on various
sections in the document. sections in the document. We also like to acknowledge Will Liu,
Semion Lisyansky, Faisal Shah for their review and feedback to the
document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term]
Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-23
(work in progress), February 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918, [RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC1983] Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983, [RFC1983] Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983,
August 1996. August 1996.
[RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN [RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/