draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-07.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt 
Network Working Group Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: January 2006 Expires in: April 2006
Scott Poretsky Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems Reef Point Systems
Brent Imhoff Brent Imhoff
LightCore
July 2005 October 2005
Benchmarking Methodology for Benchmarking Methodology for
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
<draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-07.txt> <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo 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 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as
Drafts. Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT ABSTRACT
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
Convergence as described in Applicability document [1] and Convergence as described in Applicability document [1] and
Terminology document [2]. The methodology and terminology are Terminology document [2]. The methodology and terminology are
to be used for benchmarking route convergence and can be applied to be used for benchmarking route convergence and can be applied
to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4]. The terms to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4]. The terms
used in the procedures provided within this document are used in the procedures provided within this document are
defined in [2]. defined in [2].
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure............................7 4.1 Convergence Due to Link Failure............................7
4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure...............7 4.1.1 Convergence Due to Local Interface Failure...............7
4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure............7 4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure............7
4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure..............8 4.1.3 Convergence Due to Remote Interface Failure..............8
4.2 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Failure.................9 4.2 Convergence Due to Layer 2 Session Failure.................9
4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure...................10 4.3 Convergence Due to IGP Adjacency Failure...................10
4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................10 4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal........................10
4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................11 4.5 Convergence Due to Cost Change.............................11
4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........12 4.6 Convergence Due to ECMP Member Interface Failure...........12
4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure.........12 4.7 Convergence Due to Parallel Link Interface Failure.........12
5. Security Considerations.....................................13 5. IANA Considerations.........................................13
6. Normative References........................................13 6. Security Considerations.....................................13
7. Author's Address............................................13 7. Normative References........................................13
8. Author's Address............................................13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route This draft describes the methodology for benchmarking IGP Route
Convergence. The applicability of this testing is described in Convergence. The applicability of this testing is described in
[1] and the new terminology that it introduces is defined in [2]. [1] and the new terminology that it introduces is defined in [2].
Service Providers use IGP Convergence time as a key metric of Service Providers use IGP Convergence time as a key metric of
router design and architecture. Customers of Service Providers router design and architecture. Customers of Service Providers
observe convergence time by packet loss, so IGP Route Convergence observe convergence time by packet loss, so IGP Route Convergence
is considered a Direct Measure of Quality (DMOQ). The test cases is considered a Direct Measure of Quality (DMOQ). The test cases
in this document are black-box tests that emulate the network in this document are black-box tests that emulate the network
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
[Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the [Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document. document.
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3. Test Setup 3. Test Setup
3.1 Test Topologies 3.1 Test Topologies
Figure 1 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence due Figure 1 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence due
to local Convergence Events such as SONET Link Failure, Layer 2 Session to local Convergence Events such as SONET Link Failure, Layer 2
Failure, IGP Adjacency Failure, Route Withdrawal, and route cost Session Failure, IGP Adjacency Failure, Route Withdrawal, and route
change. These test cases discussed in section 4 provide route cost change. These test cases discussed in section 4 provide route
convergence times that account for the Event Detection time, SPF convergence times that account for the Event Detection time, SPF
Processing time, and FIB Update time. These times are measured Processing time, and FIB Update time. These times are measured
by observing packet loss in the data plane. by observing packet loss in the data plane.
--------- Ingress Interface --------- --------- Ingress Interface ---------
| |<--------------------------------| | | |<--------------------------------| |
| | | | | | | |
| | Preferred Egress Interface | | | | Preferred Egress Interface | |
| DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester| | DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester|
| | | | | | | |
skipping to change at page 3, line 55 skipping to change at page 3, line 55
^ | | Egress Interface | | ^ | | Egress Interface | |
| ----- --------- | ----- ---------
| | | |
|-------------------------------------- |--------------------------------------
Ingress Interface Ingress Interface
Figure 2. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology Figure 2. IGP Route Convergence Test Topology
for Remote Changes for Remote Changes
Figure 3 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence Figure 3 shows the test topology to measure IGP Route Convergence
time with members of an Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Set. These times are time with members of an Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Set. These
measured by observing packet loss in the data plane. In this topology, times are measured by observing packet loss in the data plane.
the DUT In thistopology, the DUT is configured with each Egress interface
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
is configured with each Egress interface as a member of an ECMP set as a member of an ECMP set and the Tester emulates multiple
and the Tester emulates multiple next-hop routers (emulates one next-hop routers (emulates one router for each member).
router for each member).
--------- Ingress Interface --------- --------- Ingress Interface ---------
| |<--------------------------------| | | |<--------------------------------| |
| | | | | | | |
| | ECMP Set Interface 1 | | | | ECMP Set Interface 1 | |
| DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester| | DUT |-------------------------------->| Tester|
| | . | | | | . | |
| | . | | | | . | |
| | . | | | | . | |
| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| | | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>| |
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 7, line 32
3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface. 3. Verify traffic routed over Preferred Egress Interface.
4. Remove link on DUT's Local Interface [2] by performing an 4. Remove link on DUT's Local Interface [2] by performing an
administrative shutdown of the interface. administrative shutdown of the interface.
5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the 5. Measure Rate-Derived Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over link down event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Next-Best Egress Interface. the Next-Best Egress Interface.
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain. 6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load. Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore link on DUT's Local Interface by administratively 7. Restore link on DUT's Local Interface by administratively
enabling the interface. enabling the interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the link link up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back
up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic back to the to the Preferred Egress Interface.
Preferred Egress Interface.
Results Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution link failure indication, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, SPF Execution
Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time. Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure 4.1.2 Convergence Due to Neighbor Interface Failure
Objective Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to a local link
failure event at the Tester's Neighbor Interface. failure event at the Tester's Neighbor Interface.
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain. 6. Stop offered load. Wait 30 seconds for queues to drain.
Restart Offered Load. Restart Offered Load.
7. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface. 7. Restore IGP session on DUT's Preferred Egress Interface.
8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the 8. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over session up event and converges all IGP routes and traffic over
the Preferred Egress Interface. the Preferred Egress Interface.
Results Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the IGP The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the IGP
Hello Interval, IGP Dead Interval, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime, Hello Interval, IGP Dead Interval, SPF delay, SPF Holdtime,
SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update SPF Execution Time, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time.
Time.
4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal 4.4 Convergence Due to Route Withdrawal
Objective Objective
To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to Route Withdrawal. To obtain the IGP Route Convergence due to Route Withdrawal.
Procedure Procedure
1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on 1. Advertise matching IGP routes from Tester to DUT on
Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface Preferred Egress Interface [2] and Next-Best Egress Interface
[2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of [2] using the topology shown in Figure 1. Set the cost of
skipping to change at page 13, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to 8. Restore link on Tester's Neighbor Interface connected to
DUT's Parallel Link member interface. DUT's Parallel Link member interface.
9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the 9. Measure Restoration Convergence Time [2] as DUT detects the
link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution link up event and converges IGP routes and some distribution
of traffic over the restored Parallel Link member. of traffic over the restored Parallel Link member.
Results Results
The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local The measured IGP Convergence time is influenced by the Local
link failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update Time. link failure indication, Tree Build Time, and Hardware Update
Time.
5. Security Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
the Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking the Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
networks. networks.
6. Normative References 7. Normative References
[1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP [1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-07, work Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-08, work
in progress, July 2005. in progress, October 2005.
[2] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP [2] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-07, work Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-08, work
in progress, July 2005 in progress, October 2005
[3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual [3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, IETF, December 1990. Environments", RFC 1195, IETF, December 1990.
[4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998. [4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.
[5] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection [5] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Devices", RFC 1242, IETF, July 1991. Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, IETF, October 1991.
[6] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for [6] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, IETF, March 1999. Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, IETF, March 1999.
[7] Katz, D. and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection", [7] Katz, D. and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-02.txt, work in progress, IETF, draft-ietf-bfd-base-02.txt, work in progress, IETF,
March 2005. March 2005.
7. Author's Address 8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park 8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803 Burlington, MA 01803
USA USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Brent Imhoff Brent Imhoff
LightCore
USA USA
EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.27, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/