draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-03.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04.txt 
Benchmarking Working Group R. Papneja Benchmarking Working Group R. Papneja
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational B. Parise Intended status: Informational B. Parise
Expires: April 17, 2015 Cisco Systems Expires: April 29, 2015 Cisco Systems
S. Hares S. Hares
Adara Networks Huawei Technologies
D. Lee D. Lee
IXIA IXIA
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Easynet Global Services Google
October 14, 2014 October 26, 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-03.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04.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 April 17, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1.2. RIB-OUT Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.3. eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.3. eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.4. iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.4. iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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 . . . . . 20
5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on 5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on
Emulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Emulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. BGP Hard Reset Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.4. BGP Hard Reset Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4.1. BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT . . . . . . 21 5.4.1. BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT . . . . . . 21
5.5. BGP Soft Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.5. BGP Soft Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.6. BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.6. BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7. BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time . . . . . . . . 26 5.7. BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time . . . . . . . . 26
5.8. BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.8. BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines the methodology for benchmarking data plane FIB This document defines the methodology for benchmarking data plane FIB
convergence performance of BGP in routers and switches using convergence performance of BGP in routers and switches using
topologies of 3 or 4 nodes. The methodology proposed in this topologies of 3 or 4 nodes. The methodology proposed in this
document applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 and if a particular test is document applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 and if a particular test is
unique to one version, it is marked accordingly. For IPv6 unique to one version, it is marked accordingly. For IPv6
benchmarking the device under test will require the support of Multi- benchmarking the device under test will require the support of Multi-
Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760, RFC2545]. Similarly both iBGP & eBGP Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760, RFC2545]. Similarly both iBGP & eBGP
skipping to change at page 12, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 14
4.8. Authentication 4.8. Authentication
Authentication in BGP is done using the TCP MD5 Signature Option Authentication in BGP is done using the TCP MD5 Signature Option
[RFC5925]. The processing of the MD5 hash, particularly in devices [RFC5925]. The processing of the MD5 hash, particularly in devices
with a large number of BGP peers and a large amount of update with a large number of BGP peers and a large amount of update
traffic, can have an impact on the control plane of the device. If traffic, can have an impact on the control plane of the device. If
authentication is enabled, it MUST be documented correctly in the authentication is enabled, it MUST be documented correctly in the
reporting format. reporting format.
Also it is recommended that trials MUST be with the same SIDR
features (RFC7115 & BGPSec). The best convergence tests would be
with No SIDR features, and then with the same SIDR features.
4.9. Convergence Events 4.9. Convergence Events
Convergence events or triggers are defined as abnormal occurrences in Convergence events or triggers are defined as abnormal occurrences in
the network, which initiate route flapping in the network, and hence the network, which initiate route flapping in the network, and hence
forces the re-convergence of a steady state network. In a real forces the re-convergence of a steady state network. In a real
network, a series of convergence events may cause convergence latency network, a series of convergence events may cause convergence latency
operators desire to test. operators desire to test.
These convergence events must be defined in terms of the sequences These convergence events must be defined in terms of the sequences
defined in RFC 4098. This basic document begins all tests with a defined in RFC 4098. This basic document begins all tests with a
skipping to change at page 29, line 12 skipping to change at page 29, line 27
serviced before the DUT actually switches over and serviced before the DUT actually switches over and
reestablishes BGP adjacencies with the peers. reestablishes BGP adjacencies with the peers.
6. Reporting Format 6. Reporting Format
For each test case, it is recommended that the reporting tables below For each test case, it is recommended that the reporting tables below
are completed and all time values SHOULD be reported with resolution are completed and all time values SHOULD be reported with resolution
as specified in [RFC4098]. as specified in [RFC4098].
Parameter Units Parameter Units
Test case Test case number Test case Test case number
Test topology 1,2,3 or 4 Test topology 1,2,3 or 4
Parallel links Number of parallel links Parallel links Number of parallel links
Interface type GigE, POS, ATM, other Interface type GigE, POS, ATM, other
Convergence Event Hard reset, Soft reset, link Convergence Event Hard reset, Soft reset, link
failure, or other defined failure, or other defined
eBGP sessions Number of eBGP sessions eBGP sessions Number of eBGP sessions
iBGP sessions Number of iBGP sessions iBGP sessions Number of iBGP sessions
eBGP neighbor Number of eBGP neighbors eBGP neighbor Number of eBGP neighbors
iBGP neighbor Number of iBGP neighbors iBGP neighbor Number of iBGP neighbors
Routes per peer Number of routes Routes per peer Number of routes
Total unique routes Number of routes Total unique routes Number of routes
Total non-unique routes Number of routes Total non-unique routes Number of routes
IGP configured ISIS, OSPF, static, or other IGP configured ISIS, OSPF, static, or other
Route Mixture Description of Route mixture Route Mixture Description of Route mixture
Route Packing Number of routes in an update Route Packing Number of routes in an update
Policy configured Yes, No Policy configured Yes, No
SIDR Origin Authentication Yes, No
[RFC7115]
bgp-sec [BGPSec] Yes, No
Packet size offered to the DUT Bytes Packet size offered to the DUT Bytes
Offered load Packets per second Offered load Packets per second
Packet sampling interval on Seconds Packet sampling interval on Seconds
tester tester
Forwarding delay threshold Seconds Forwarding delay threshold Seconds
Timer Values configured on DUT Timer Values configured on DUT
Interface failure indication Seconds Interface failure indication Seconds
delay delay
Hold time Seconds Hold time Seconds
MinRouteAdvertisementInterval Seconds MinRouteAdvertisementInterval Seconds
(MRAI) (MRAI)
MinASOriginationInterval Seconds MinASOriginationInterval Seconds
(MAOI) (MAOI)
Keepalive Time Seconds Keepalive Time Seconds
ConnectRetry Seconds ConnectRetry Seconds
skipping to change at page 29, line 44 skipping to change at page 30, line 38
Timer Values configured on DUT Timer Values configured on DUT
Interface failure indication Seconds Interface failure indication Seconds
delay delay
Hold time Seconds Hold time Seconds
MinRouteAdvertisementInterval Seconds MinRouteAdvertisementInterval Seconds
(MRAI) (MRAI)
MinASOriginationInterval Seconds MinASOriginationInterval Seconds
(MAOI) (MAOI)
Keepalive Time Seconds Keepalive Time Seconds
ConnectRetry Seconds ConnectRetry Seconds
TCP Parameters for DUT and tester TCP Parameters for DUT and tester
MSS Bytes MSS Bytes
Slow start threshold Bytes Slow start threshold Bytes
Maximum window size Bytes Maximum window size Bytes
Test Details: Test Details:
a. If the Offered Load matches a subset of routes, describe how this a. If the Offered Load matches a subset of routes, describe how this
subset is selected. subset is selected.
b. Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause b. Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause
instantaneous traffic loss or not. instantaneous traffic loss or not.
skipping to change at page 31, line 4 skipping to change at page 31, line 10
subset is selected. subset is selected.
b. Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause b. Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause
instantaneous traffic loss or not. instantaneous traffic loss or not.
c. If there is any policy configured, describe the configured c. If there is any policy configured, describe the configured
policy. policy.
Complete the table below for the initial Convergence Event and the Complete the table below for the initial Convergence Event and the
reversion Convergence Event reversion Convergence Event
Parameter Unit Parameter Unit
Convergence Event Initial or reversion Convergence Event Initial or reversion
Traffic Forwarding Metrics Traffic Forwarding Metrics
Total number of packets Number of packets Total number of packets Number of packets
offered to DUT offered to DUT
Total number of packets Number of packets Total number of packets Number of packets
forwarded by DUT forwarded by DUT
Connectivity Packet Loss Number of packets Connectivity Packet Loss Number of packets
Convergence Packet Loss Number of packets Convergence Packet Loss Number of packets
Out-of-order packets Number of packets Out-of-order packets Number of packets
Duplicate packets Number of packets Duplicate packets Number of packets
Convergence Benchmarks Convergence Benchmarks
Rate-derived Method[IGP-
Data]: Rate-derived Method[RFC
6412]:
First route convergence Seconds First route convergence Seconds
time time
Full convergence time Seconds Full convergence time Seconds
Loss-derived Method [IGP-
Data]: Loss-derived Method [RFC
6412]:
Loss-derived convergence Seconds Loss-derived convergence Seconds
time time
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Route-Specific Loss-Derived
Method: Method:
Minimum R-S convergence Seconds Minimum R-S convergence Seconds
time time
Maximum R-S convergence Seconds Maximum R-S convergence Seconds
time time
Median R-S convergence Seconds Median R-S convergence Seconds
time time
Average R-S convergence Seconds Average R-S convergence Seconds
time time
skipping to change at page 32, line 41 skipping to change at page 33, line 9
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, Eric Brendel for their input and discussions on various Karthik, Eric Brendel for their input and discussions on various
sections in the document. We also like to acknowledge Will Liu, sections in the document. We also like to acknowledge Will Liu,
Semion Lisyansky, Faisal Shah for their review and feedback to the Semion Lisyansky, Faisal Shah for their review and feedback to the
document. document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification",
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-09 (work in progress),
July 2014.
[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.
[RFC4098] Berkowitz, H., Davies, E., Hares, S., Krishnaswamy, P., [RFC4098] Berkowitz, H., Davies, E., Hares, S., Krishnaswamy, P.,
and M. Lepp, "Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device and M. Lepp, "Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device
Convergence in the Control Plane", RFC 4098, June 2005. Convergence in the Control Plane", RFC 4098, June 2005.
[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 [RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011. Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.
[RFC7115] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185,
RFC 7115, January 2014.
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.
skipping to change at page 34, line 4 skipping to change at page 34, line 23
Rajiv Papneja Rajiv Papneja
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com
Bhavani Parise Bhavani Parise
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: bhavani@cisco.com Email: bhavani@cisco.com
Susan Hares Susan Hares
Adara Networks Huawei Technologies
Email: shares@ndzh.com Email: shares@ndzh.com
Dean Lee Dean Lee
IXIA IXIA
Email: dlee@ixiacom.com Email: dlee@ixiacom.com
Ilya Varlashkin Ilya Varlashkin
Easynet Global Services Google
Email: ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com Email: ilya@nobulus.com
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 66 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/