draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-05.txt   rfc5180.txt 
Network Working Group C. Popoviciu Network Working Group C. Popoviciu
Internet-Draft A. Hamza Request for Comments: 5180 A. Hamza
Intended status: Informational G. Van de Velde Category: Informational G. Van de Velde
Expires: July 4, 2008 Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
D. Dugatkin D. Dugatkin
IXIA FastSoft Inc.
January 2008
IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
<draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-05.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2008.
Copyright Notice Status of This Memo
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
The Benchmarking Methodologies defined in RFC2544 [9] are IP version The benchmarking methodologies defined in RFC 2544 are IP version
independent. However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the independent. However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the
specificities of IPv6. This document provides additional specificities of IPv6. This document provides additional
benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC2544, lead to a benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC 2544, lead to
more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of a more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of
network interconnect devices. IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside network interconnect devices. IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Existing Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Existing Definitions ............................................3
3. Tests and Results Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Tests and Results Evaluation ....................................3
4. Test Environment Set Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Test Environment Setup ..........................................3
5. Test Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Test Traffic ....................................................4
5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes ....................................4
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to be used on Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used on Ethernet ..................5
5.1.2. Frame Sizes to be used on SONET . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used on SONET .....................5
5.2. Protocol Addresses Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Protocol Addresses Selection ...............................6
5.2.1. DUT Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2.1. DUT Protocol Addresses ..............................6
5.2.2. Test Traffic Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.2. Test Traffic Protocol Addresses .....................7
5.3. Traffic with Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Traffic with Extension Headers .............................7
5.4. Traffic set up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. Traffic Setup ..............................................9
6. Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Modifiers .......................................................9
6.1. Management and Routing Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Management and Routing Traffic .............................9
6.2. Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Filters ...................................................10
6.2.1. Filter Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2.1. Filter Format ......................................10
6.2.2. Filter Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2.2. Filter Types .......................................11
7. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Benchmarking Tests .............................................12
7.1. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Throughput ................................................13
7.2. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Latency ...................................................13
7.3. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3. Frame Loss ................................................13
7.4. Back-to-Back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.4. Back-to-Back Frames .......................................13
7.5. System Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.5. System Recovery ...........................................14
7.6. Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.6. Reset .....................................................14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations ............................................14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations ........................................14
10. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Conclusions ...................................................15
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Acknowledgements ..............................................15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. References ....................................................15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.1. Normative References .....................................15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12.2. Informative References ...................................16
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Reference . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Reference ............17
A.1. Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. Ethernet .................................................17
A.2. Packet over SONET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2. Packet over SONET ........................................18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The benchmarking methodologies defined by RFC2544 [9] are proving to The benchmarking methodologies defined by RFC2544 [9] are proving to
be useful in consistently evaluating IPv4 forwarding performance of be useful in consistently evaluating IPv4 forwarding performance of
network elements. Adherence to these testing and result analysis network elements. Adherence to these testing and result analysis
procedures facilitates objective comparison of IPv4 performance data procedures facilitates objective comparison of IPv4 performance data
measured on various products and by various individuals. While the measured on various products and by various individuals. While the
principles behind the methodologies introduced in RFC2544 are largely principles behind the methodologies introduced in RFC 2544 are
IP version independent, the protocol continued to evolve, largely IP version independent, the protocol has continued to evolve,
particularly in its version 6 (IPv6). particularly in its version 6 (IPv6).
This document provides benchmarking methodology recommendations that This document provides benchmarking methodology recommendations that
address IPv6 specific aspects such as evaluating the forwarding address IPv6-specific aspects, such as evaluating the forwarding
performance of traffic containing extension headers as defined in performance of traffic containing extension headers, as defined in
RFC2460 [2]. These recommendations are defined within the RFC2544 RFC2460 [2]. These recommendations are defined within the RFC2544
framework and complement the test and result analysis procedures as framework, and they complement the test and result analysis
described in RFC2544. procedures as described in RFC 2544.
The terms used in this document remain consistent with those defined The terms used in this document remain consistent with those defined
in "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices" in "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC
RFC1242 [7]. This terminology SHOULD be consulted before using or 1242 [7]. This terminology SHOULD be consulted before using or
applying the recommendations of this document. applying the recommendations of this document.
Any methodology aspects not covered in this document SHOULD be Any methodology aspects not covered in this document SHOULD be
assumed to be treated based on the RFC2544 recommendations. assumed to be treated based on the RFC2544 recommendations.
2. Existing Definitions 2. Existing Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 40
3. Tests and Results Evaluation 3. Tests and Results Evaluation
The recommended performance evaluation tests are described in Section The recommended performance evaluation tests are described in Section
7 of this document. Not all of these tests are applicable to all 7 of this document. Not all of these tests are applicable to all
network element types. Nevertheless, for each evaluated device, it network element types. Nevertheless, for each evaluated device, it
is recommended to perform as many of the applicable tests described is recommended to perform as many of the applicable tests described
in Section 6 as possible. in Section 6 as possible.
Test execution and results analysis MUST be performed while observing Test execution and results analysis MUST be performed while observing
generally accepted testing practices regarding repeatability, generally accepted testing practices regarding repeatability,
variance and statistical significance of small numbers of trials. variance, and statistical significance of small numbers of trials.
4. Test Environment Set Up 4. Test Environment Setup
The test environment setup options recommended for the IPv6 The test environment setup options recommended for the IPv6
performance evaluation are the same as those described in Section 6 performance evaluation are the same as those described in Section 6
of RFC2544, in both single-port and multi-port scenarios. Single- of RFC 2544, in both single-port and multi-port scenarios.
port testing measures per-interface forwarding performance while Single-port testing measures per-interface forwarding performance,
multi-port testing measures the scalability of forwarding performance while multi-port testing measures the scalability of forwarding
across the entire platform. performance across the entire platform.
Throughout the test, the Device Under Test (DUT) can be monitored for Throughout the test, the Device Under Test (DUT) can be monitored for
relevant resource (Processor, Memory, etc.) utilization. This data relevant resource (processor, memory, etc.) utilization. This data
could be beneficial in understanding traffic processing by each DUT could be beneficial in understanding traffic processing by each DUT
and the resources that must be allocated for IPv6. It could reveal and the resources that must be allocated for IPv6. It could reveal
if the IPv6 traffic is processed in hardware, by applicable devices, if the IPv6 traffic is processed in hardware, by applicable devices,
under all test conditions or it is punted in the software switched under all test conditions, or if it is punted in the software-
path. If such data is considered of interest, it MUST be collected switched path. If such data is considered of interest, it MUST be
out of band and independent of any management data collected through collected out of band and be independent of any management data
the interfaces forwarding the test traffic. collected through the interfaces forwarding the test traffic.
Note: During testing, either static or dynamic options for neighbor Note: During testing, either static or dynamic options for neighbor
discovery can be used. In the static case the IPv6 neighbor discovery can be used. In the static case, the IPv6 neighbor
information for the test tool is manually configured on the DUT and information for the test tool is manually configured on the DUT, and
the IPv6 neighbor information for the DUT is manually configured on the IPv6 neighbor information for the DUT is manually configured on
the test tool. In the dynamic case, the IPv6 neighbor information is the test tool. In the dynamic case, the IPv6 neighbor information is
dynamically discovered by each device through the neighbor discovery dynamically discovered by each device through the neighbor discovery
protocol. The static option can be used as long as it is supported protocol. The static option can be used as long as it is supported
by the test tool. The dynamic option is preferred wherein the test by the test tool. The dynamic option is preferred wherein the test
tool interacts with the DUT for the duration of the test to maintain tool interacts with the DUT for the duration of the test to maintain
the respective neighbor caches in an active state. To avoid neighbor the respective neighbor caches in an active state. To avoid neighbor
solicitation (NS) and neighbor advertisement (NA) storms due to the solicitation (NS) and neighbor advertisement (NA) storms due to the
neighbor unreachability detection (NUD) mechanism [3], the test neighbor unreachability detection (NUD) mechanism [6], the test
scenarios assume test traffic simulates end points and IPv6 source scenarios assume test traffic simulates end points and IPv6 source
and destination addresses are one hop beyond the DUT. and destination addresses that are one hop beyond the DUT.
5. Test Traffic 5. Test Traffic
Traffic used for all tests described in this document SHOULD meet the Traffic used for all tests described in this document SHOULD meet the
requirements described in this section. These requirements are requirements described in this section. These requirements are
designed to reflect the characteristics of IPv6 unicast traffic. designed to reflect the characteristics of IPv6 unicast traffic.
Using the recommended IPv6 traffic profile leads to a complete Using the recommended IPv6 traffic profile leads to a complete
evaluation of the network element performance. evaluation of the network element performance.
5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
Two types of media are commonly deployed and each SHOULD be tested if Two types of media are commonly deployed, and each SHOULD be tested
the network element supports that type of media: Ethernet and SONET. if the network element supports that type of media: Ethernet and
This section identifies the frame sizes that SHOULD be used for each SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). This section identifies the
media type. Refer to recommendations in RFC2544 for all other media frame sizes that SHOULD be used for each media type. Refer to
types. recommendations in RFC 2544 for all other media types.
Similar to IPv4, small frame sizes help characterize the per-frame Similar to IPv4, small frame sizes help characterize the per-frame
processing overhead of the DUT. Note that the minimum IPv6 packet processing overhead of the DUT. Note that the minimum IPv6 packet
size (40 bytes) is larger than that of an IPv4 packet (20 bytes). size (40 bytes) is larger than that of an IPv4 packet (20 bytes).
Tests should compensate for this difference. Tests should compensate for this difference.
The frame sizes listed for IPv6 include the extension headers used in The frame sizes listed for IPv6 include the extension headers used in
testing (see section 5.3). By definition, extension headers are part testing (see Section 5.3). By definition, extension headers are part
of the IPv6 packet payload. Depending on the total length of the of the IPv6 packet payload. Depending on the total length of the
extension headers, their use might not be possible at the smallest extension headers, their use might not be possible at the smallest
frame sizes. frame sizes.
Note: Test tools are commonly using signatures to identify test Note: Test tools commonly use signatures to identify test traffic
traffic packets to verify that there are no packet drops, out of packets to verify that there are no packet drops or out-of-order
order packets or to calculate various statistics such as delay and packets, or to calculate various statistics such as delay and jitter.
jitter. This could be the reason why the minimum frame size This could be the reason why the minimum frame size selectable
selectable through the test tool might not be as low as the through the test tool might not be as low as the theoretical one
theoretical one presented in this document. presented in this document.
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to be used on Ethernet 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used on Ethernet
Ethernet in all its types has become the most commonly deployed media Ethernet, in all its types, has become the most commonly deployed
in today's networks. The following frame sizes SHOULD be used for media in today's networks. The following frame sizes SHOULD be used
benchmarking over this media type: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, for benchmarking over this media type: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280,
1518 bytes. and 1518 bytes.
Note: The recommended 1518 bytes frame size represents the maximum Note: The recommended 1518-byte frame size represents the maximum
size of an untagged Ethernet frame. According to the IEEE 802.3as size of an untagged Ethernet frame. According to the IEEE 802.3as
standard [13], the frame size can be increased up to 2048 bytes to standard [13], the frame size can be increased up to 2048 bytes to
accommodate frame tags and other encapsulation required by the IEEE accommodate frame tags and other encapsulation required by the IEEE
802.1AE MAC [14] security protocol. A frame size commonly used in 802.1AE MAC [14] security protocol. A frame size commonly used in
operational environments is 1522 bytes, max length for a VLAN-tagged operational environments is 1522 bytes, the max length for a
frame as per 802.1D [15]. VLAN-tagged frame, as per 802.1D [15].
Note: While jumbo frames are outside the scope of the 802.3 IEEE Note: While jumbo frames are outside the scope of the 802.3 IEEE
standard, tests SHOULD be executed with frame sizes selected based on standard, tests SHOULD be executed with frame sizes selected based on
the values supported by the device under test. Examples of commonly the values supported by the device under test. Examples of commonly
used jumbo frame sizes are: 4096, 8192, 9216 bytes. used jumbo frame sizes are: 4096, 8192, and 9216 bytes.
The maximum frame rates for each frame size and the various Ethernet The maximum frame rates for each frame size and the various Ethernet
interface types are provided in Appendix A. interface types are provided in Appendix A.
5.1.2. Frame Sizes to be used on SONET 5.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used on SONET
Packet over SONET (PoS) interfaces are commonly used for edge uplinks Packet over SONET (PoS) interfaces are commonly used for edge uplinks
and high bandwidth core links. Evaluating the forwarding performance and high-bandwidth core links. Evaluating the forwarding performance
of PoS interfaces supported by the DUT is recommended. The following of PoS interfaces supported by the DUT is recommended. The following
frame sizes SHOULD be used for this media type: 47, 64, 128, 256, frame sizes SHOULD be used for this media type: 47, 64, 128, 256,
512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048, 4096 bytes. 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048, 4096 bytes.
The theoretical maximum frame rates for each frame size and the The theoretical maximum frame rates for each frame size and the
various PoS interface types are provided in Appendix A. various PoS interface types are provided in Appendix A.
5.2. Protocol Addresses Selection 5.2. Protocol Addresses Selection
There are two aspects of IPv6 benchmarking testing where IP address There are two aspects of IPv6 benchmarking testing where IP address
selection considerations MUST be analyzed: The selection of IP selection considerations MUST be analyzed: the selection of IP
addresses for the DUT and the selection of addresses for test addresses for the DUT and the selection of addresses for test
traffic. traffic.
5.2.1. DUT Protocol Addresses 5.2.1. DUT Protocol Addresses
IANA reserved an IPv6 address block for use with IPv6 benchmark IANA reserved an IPv6 address block for use with IPv6 benchmark
testing (see section 8). It MAY be assumed that addresses in this testing (see Section 8). It MAY be assumed that addresses in this
block are not globally routable and they MUST NOT be used as Internet block are not globally routable, and they MUST NOT be used as
source or destination addresses. Internet source or destination addresses.
Similar to RFC2544, Appendix C, addresses from the first half of this Similar to Appendix C of RFC 2544, addresses from the first half of
range SHOULD be used for the ports viewed as input and addresses from this range SHOULD be used for the ports viewed as input and addresses
the other half of the range for the output ports. from the other half of the range for the output ports.
The prefix length of the IPv6 addresses configured on the DUT The prefix length of the IPv6 addresses configured on the DUT
interfaces MUST fall into either of the following: interfaces MUST fall into either of the following:
o Prefix length is /126 which would simulate a point-to-point link
for a core router. o Prefix length is /126, which would simulate a point-to-point
link for a core router.
o Prefix length is smaller or equal to /64. o Prefix length is smaller or equal to /64.
No prefix lengths SHOULD be selected in the range between 64 and 128 No prefix lengths SHOULD be selected in the range between 64 and 128
except the 126 value mentioned above. except the 126 value mentioned above.
Note that /126 prefixes might not be always the best choice for Note that /126 prefixes might not always be the best choice for
addressing point-to-point links such as back-to-back Ethernet unless addressing point-to-point links such as back-to-back Ethernet unless
the autoprovisioning mechanism is disabled. Also, not all network the auto-provisioning mechanism is disabled. Also, not all network
elements support addresses of this prefix length. elements support addresses of this prefix length.
While with IPv6, the DUT interfaces can be configured with multiple While with IPv6, the DUT interfaces can be configured with multiple
global unicast addresses, the methodology described in this document global unicast addresses, the methodology described in this document
does not require testing such a scenario. It is not expected that does not require testing such a scenario. It is not expected that
such an evaluation would bring additional data regarding the such an evaluation would bring additional data regarding the
performance of the network element. performance of the network element.
The Interface ID portion of global unicast IPv6 DUT addresses SHOULD The Interface ID portion of global unicast IPv6 DUT addresses SHOULD
be set to ::1. There are no requirements in the selection of the be set to ::1. There are no requirements in the selection of the
Interface ID portion of the link local IPv6 addresses. Interface ID portion of the link local IPv6 addresses.
It is recommended that multiple iterations of the benchmark tests be It is recommended that multiple iterations of the benchmark tests be
conducted using the following prefix lengths: 48, 64, 126 and 128 for conducted using the following prefix lengths: 48, 64, 126, and 128
the advertised traffic destination prefix. Other prefix lengths can for the advertised traffic destination prefix. Other prefix lengths
be used. However the indicated range reflects major prefix can be used. However, the indicated range reflects major prefix
boundaries expected to be present in IPv6 routing tables and they boundaries expected to be present in IPv6 routing tables, and they
should be representative to establish baseline performance metrics. should be representative to establish baseline performance metrics.
5.2.2. Test Traffic Protocol Addresses 5.2.2. Test Traffic Protocol Addresses
IPv6 source and destination addresses for the test streams SHOULD IPv6 source and destination addresses for the test streams SHOULD
belong to the IPv6 range assigned by IANA as defined in section 8. belong to the IPv6 range assigned by IANA, as defined in Section 8.
The source addresses SHOULD belong to one half of the range and the The source addresses SHOULD belong to one half of the range and the
destination addresses to the other, reflecting the DUT interface IPv6 destination addresses to the other, reflecting the DUT interface IPv6
address selection. address selection.
Tests SHOULD first be executed with a single stream leveraging a Tests SHOULD first be executed with a single stream leveraging a
single source-destination address pair. The tests SHOULD then be single source-destination address pair. The tests SHOULD then be
repeated with traffic using a random destination address in the repeated with traffic using a random destination address in the
corresponding range. If the network element prefix lookup corresponding range. If the network element prefix lookup
capabilities are evaluated, the tests SHOULD focus on the IPv6 capabilities are evaluated, the tests SHOULD focus on the IPv6
relevant prefix boundaries: 0-64, 126 and 128. relevant prefix boundaries: 0-64, 126, and 128.
Note: When statically defined neighbors are not used, the parameters Note: When statically defined neighbors are not used, the parameters
affecting Neighbor Unreachability Detection should be consistently affecting Neighbor Unreachability Detection should be consistently
set. The IPv6 prefix reachable time in the router advertisement set. The IPv6 prefix-reachable time in the router advertisement
SHOULD be set to 30 seconds. SHOULD be set to 30 seconds.
5.3. Traffic with Extension Headers 5.3. Traffic with Extension Headers
Extension headers are an intrinsic part of the IPv6 architecture [2]. Extension headers are an intrinsic part of the IPv6 architecture [2].
They are used with various types of practical traffic such as: They are used with various types of practical traffic such as:
fragmented traffic, mobile IP based traffic, authenticated and fragmented traffic, mobile IP-based traffic, and authenticated and
encrypted traffic. For these reasons, all tests described in this encrypted traffic. For these reasons, all tests described in this
document SHOULD be performed with both traffic that has no extension document SHOULD be performed with both traffic that has no extension
headers and traffic that has a set of extension headers. Extension headers and traffic that has a set of extension headers. Extension
header types can be selected from the following list [2] which header types can be selected from the following list [2] that
reflects the recommended order of multiple extension headers in a reflects the recommended order of multiple extension headers in a
packet: packet:
o Hop-by-hop header o Hop-by-hop header
o Destination options header o Destination options header
o Routing header o Routing header
o Fragment header o Fragment header
o Authentication header o Authentication header
o Encapsulating security payload (ESP) header o Encapsulating security payload (ESP) header
o Destination options header o Destination options header
o Mobility header o Mobility header
Since extension headers are an intrinsic part of the protocol and Since extension headers are an intrinsic part of the protocol and
that they fulfill different roles, benchmarking of traffic containing they fulfill different roles, benchmarking of traffic containing each
each extension header SHOULD be executed individually. extension header SHOULD be executed individually.
The special processing rules for the hop-by-hop extension header The special processing rules for the hop-by-hop extension header
require a specific benchmarking approach. Unlike other extension require a specific benchmarking approach. Unlike other extension
headers, this header must be processed by each node that forwards the headers, this header must be processed by each node that forwards the
traffic. Tests with traffic containing these extension header types traffic. Tests with traffic containing these extension header types
will not measure the forwarding performance of the DUT, but rather will not measure the forwarding performance of the DUT, but rather
its extension header processing capability, which is dependent on the its extension-header processing capability, which is dependent on the
information contained in the extension headers. The concern is that information contained in the extension headers. The concern is that
this traffic, at high rates, could have a negative impact on the this traffic, at high rates, could have a negative impact on the
operational resources of the router and could be used as a security operational resources of the router, and it could be used as a
threat. When benchmarking with traffic that contains the hop-by-hop security threat. When benchmarking with traffic that contains the
extension header, the goal is not to measure throughput [9] as in the hop-by-hop extension header, the goal is not to measure throughput
case of the other extension headers, but rather to evaluate the [9] as in the case of the other extension headers, but rather to
impact of such traffic on the router. In this case, traffic with the evaluate the impact of such traffic on the router. In this case,
hop-by-hop extension headers should be sent at 1%, 10% and 50% of the traffic with the hop-by-hop extension headers should be sent at 1%,
interface total bandwidth. Device resources must be monitored at 10%, and 50% of the interface total bandwidth. Device resources must
each traffic rate to determine the impact. be monitored at each traffic rate to determine the impact.
Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST Tests with traffic containing each individual extension header MUST
be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more be complemented with tests containing a chain of two or more
extension headers (the chain MUST NOT contain the hop-by-hop extension headers (the chain MUST NOT contain the hop-by-hop
extension header). This chain should also exclude the ESP [6] extension header). This chain should also exclude the ESP [5]
extension header since traffic with an encrypted payload can not be extension header, since traffic with an encrypted payload cannot be
used in tests with modifiers such as filters based on upper layer used in tests with modifiers such as filters based on upper-layer
information (see Section 5). Since the DUT is not analyzing the information (see Section 5). Since the DUT is not analyzing the
content of the extension headers, any combination of extension content of the extension headers, any combination of extension
headers can be used in testing. The extension header chain headers can be used in testing. The extension header chain
recommended for testing is: recommended for testing is:
o Routing header - 24-32 bytes o Routing header - 24-32 bytes
o Destination options header - 8 bytes o Destination options header - 8 bytes
o Fragment header - 8 bytes o Fragment header - 8 bytes
This is a real life extension header chain that would be found in an This is a real-life extension-header chain that would be found in an
IPv6 packet between two mobile nodes exchanged over an optimized path IPv6 packet between two mobile nodes exchanged over an optimized path
that requires fragmentation. The listed extension headers lengths that requires fragmentation. The listed extension headers' lengths
represent test tool defaults. The total length of the extension represent test tool defaults. The total length of the extension
header chain SHOULD be larger than 32 bytes. header chain SHOULD be larger than 32 bytes.
Extension headers add extra bytes to the payload size of the IP Extension headers add extra bytes to the payload size of the IP
packets which MUST be factored in when used in testing at low frame packets, which MUST be factored in when used in testing at low frame
sizes. Their presence will modify the minimum packet size used in sizes. Their presence will modify the minimum packet size used in
testing. For direct comparison between the data obtained with testing. For direct comparison between the data obtained with
traffic that has extension headers and with traffic that doesn't have traffic that has extension headers and with traffic that doesn't have
them at low frame size, a common value SHOULD be selected for the them at low frame size, a common value SHOULD be selected for the
smallest frame size of both types of traffic. smallest frame size of both types of traffic.
For most cases, the network elements ignore the extension headers For most cases, the network elements ignore the extension headers
when forwarding IPv6 traffic. For these reasons it is likely the when forwarding IPv6 traffic. For these reasons, it is likely the
performance impact related to extension headers will be observed only performance impact related to extension headers will be observed only
when testing the DUT with traffic filters that contain matching when testing the DUT with traffic filters that contain matching
conditions for the upper layer protocol information. In those cases, conditions for the upper-layer protocol information. In those cases,
the DUT MUST traverse the chain of extension headers, a process that the DUT MUST traverse the chain of extension headers, a process that
could impact performance. could impact performance.
5.4. Traffic set up 5.4. Traffic Setup
All tests recommended in this document SHOULD be performed with bi- All tests recommended in this document SHOULD be performed with
directional traffic. For asymmetric situations, tests MAY be bi-directional traffic. For asymmetric situations, tests MAY be
performed with unidirectional traffic for a more granular performed with uni-directional traffic for a more granular
characterization of the DUT performance. In these cases, the characterization of the DUT performance. In these cases, the
bidirectional traffic testing would reveal only the lowest bi-directional traffic testing would reveal only the lowest
performance between the two directions. performance between the two directions.
All other traffic profile characteristics described in RFC2544 SHOULD All other traffic profile characteristics described in RFC 2544
be applied in this testing as well. IPv6 multicast benchmarking is SHOULD be applied in this testing as well. IPv6 multicast
outside the scope of this document. benchmarking is outside the scope of this document.
6. Modifiers 6. Modifiers
RFC2544 underlines the importance of evaluating the performance of RFC2544 underlines the importance of evaluating the performance of
network elements under certain operational conditions. The network elements under certain operational conditions. The
conditions defined in RFC2544 section 11 are common to IPv4 and IPv6, conditions defined in Section 11 of RFC 2544 are common to IPv4 and
except that IPv6 does not employ layer 2 or 3 broadcast frames. IPv6 IPv6, except that IPv6 does not employ layer 2 or 3 broadcast frames.
does not use layer 2 or layer 3 broadcasts. This section provides IPv6 does not use layer 2 or layer 3 broadcasts. This section
additional conditions that are specific to IPv6. The suite of tests provides additional conditions that are specific to IPv6. The suite
recommended in this document SHOULD be first executed in the absence of tests recommended in this document SHOULD be first executed in the
of these conditions and then repeated under each of these conditions absence of these conditions and then repeated under each of these
separately. conditions separately.
6.1. Management and Routing Traffic 6.1. Management and Routing Traffic
The procedures defined in RFC2544 sections 11.2 and 11.3 are The procedures defined in Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of RFC 2544 are
applicable for IPv6 management and routing update frames as well. applicable for IPv6 management and routing update frames as well.
6.2. Filters 6.2. Filters
The filters defined in Section 11.4 of RFC2544 apply to IPv6 The filters defined in Section 11.4 of RFC2544 apply to IPv6
benchmarking as well. The filter definitions must be expanded to benchmarking as well. The filter definitions must be expanded to
include upper layer protocol information matching in order to analyze include upper-layer protocol information matching in order to analyze
the handling of traffic with extension headers which are an important the handling of traffic with extension headers, which are an
architectural component of IPv6. important architectural component of IPv6.
6.2.1. Filter Format 6.2.1. Filter Format
The filter format defined in RFC2544 is applicable to IPv6 as well The filter format defined in RFC 2544 is applicable to IPv6 as well,
except that the source addresses (SA) and destination addresses (DA) except that the source addresses (SA) and destination addresses (DA)
are IPv6 addresses. In addition to these basic filters, the are IPv6 addresses. In addition to these basic filters, the
evaluation of IPv6 performance SHOULD analyze the correct filtering evaluation of IPv6 performance SHOULD analyze the correct filtering
and handling of traffic with extension headers. and handling of traffic with extension headers.
While the intent is not to evaluate a platform's capability to While the intent is not to evaluate a platform's capability to
process the various extension header types, the goal is to measure process the various extension header types, the goal is to measure
performance impact when the network element must parse through the performance impact when the network element must parse through the
extension headers to reach upper layer information. In IPv6, routers extension headers to reach upper-layer information. In IPv6, routers
do not have to parse through the extension headers (other than hop- do not have to parse through the extension headers (other than
by-hop) unless, for example, upper layer information has to be hop-by-hop) unless, for example, upper-layer information has to be
analyzed due to filters. analyzed due to filters.
To evaluate the network element handling of IPv6 traffic with To evaluate the network element handling of IPv6 traffic with
extension headers, the definition of the filters must be extended to extension headers, the definition of the filters must be extended to
include conditions applied to upper layer protocol information. The include conditions applied to upper-layer protocol information. The
following filter format SHOULD be used for this type of evaluation: following filter format SHOULD be used for this type of evaluation:
[permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA] [permit|deny] [protocol] [SA] [DA]
where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet where permit or deny indicates the action to allow or deny a packet
through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field through the interface the filter is applied to. The protocol field
is defined as: is defined as:
o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic o ipv6: any IP Version 6 traffic
o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol o tcp: Transmission Control Protocol
o udp: User Datagram Protocol o udp: User Datagram Protocol
and SA stands for the source address and DA for the destination and SA stands for the source address and DA for the destination
address. address.
The upper layer protocols listed above are a recommended selection. The upper-layer protocols listed above are a recommended selection.
However, they do not represent an all-inclusive list of upper layer However, they do not represent an all-inclusive list of upper-layer
protocols which could be used in defining filters. The filters protocols that could be used in defining filters. The filters
described in these benchmarking recommendations apply to native IPv6 described in these benchmarking recommendations apply to native IPv6
traffic and upper layer protocols (tcp, udp) transported in native traffic and upper-layer protocols (tcp, udp) transported in native
IPv6 packets. IPv6 packets.
6.2.2. Filter Types 6.2.2. Filter Types
Based on RFC2544 recommendations, two types of tests are executed Based on RFC2544 recommendations, two types of tests are executed
when evaluating performance in the presence of modifiers: One with a when evaluating performance in the presence of modifiers: one with a
single filter and another with 25 filters. Examples of recommended single filter and another with 25 filters. Examples of recommended
filters are illustrated using the IPv6 documentation prefix [11] filters are illustrated using the IPv6 documentation prefix [11]
2001:DB8::. 2001:DB8::.
Examples of single filters are: Examples of single filters are:
Filter for TCP traffic - permit tcp 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2 Filter for TCP traffic - permit tcp 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2
Filter for UDP traffic - permit udp 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2 Filter for UDP traffic - permit udp 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2
Filter for IPv6 traffic - permit ipv6 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2 Filter for IPv6 traffic - permit ipv6 2001:DB8::1 2001:DB8::2
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 7
deny tcp 2001:DB8:E::1 2001:DB8:E::2 deny tcp 2001:DB8:E::1 2001:DB8:E::2
... ...
deny tcp 2001:DB8:19::1 2001:DB8:19::2 deny tcp 2001:DB8:19::1 2001:DB8:19::2
deny ipv6 any any deny ipv6 any any
The router SHOULD deny all traffic with or without extension headers The router SHOULD deny all traffic with or without extension headers
except TCP traffic with SA 2001:DB8:99::1 and DA 2001:DB8:99::2. except TCP traffic with SA 2001:DB8:99::1 and DA 2001:DB8:99::2.
7. Benchmarking Tests 7. Benchmarking Tests
This document recommends the same benchmarking tests described in This document recommends the same benchmarking tests described in RFC
RFC2544 while observing the DUT setup and the traffic setup 2544 while observing the DUT setup and the traffic setup
considerations described above. The following sections state the considerations described above. The following sections state the
test types explicitly and highlight only the methodology differences test types explicitly, and they highlight only the methodology
that might exist with respect to those described in Section 26 of differences that might exist with respect to those described in
RFC2544. Section 26 of RFC 2544.
The specificities of IPv6, particularly the definition of extension The specificities of IPv6, particularly the definition of extension
headers processing, require additional benchmarking steps. The tests header processing, require additional benchmarking steps. The tests
recommended by RFC2544 MUST be repeated for IPv6 traffic without recommended by RFC2544 MUST be repeated for IPv6 traffic without
extension headers and for IPv6 traffic with one or multiple extension extension headers and for IPv6 traffic with one or multiple extension
headers. headers.
IPv6's deployment in existing IPv4 environments and the expected long IPv6's deployment in existing IPv4 environments and the expected long
co-existence of the two protocols leads network operators to place coexistence of the two protocols leads network operators to place
great emphasis on understanding the performance of platforms great emphasis on understanding the performance of platforms
processing both types of traffic. While device resources are shared processing both types of traffic. While device resources are shared
between the two protocols, it is important that IPv6-enabled between the two protocols, it is important that IPv6-enabled
platforms not experience degraded IPv4 performance. Thus, IPv6 platforms not experience degraded IPv4 performance. Thus, IPv6
benchmarking SHOULD be performed in the context of a stand alone benchmarking SHOULD be performed in the context of a stand-alone
protocol as well as in the context of its co-existence with IPv4. protocol as well as in the context of its coexistence with IPv4.
The modifiers defined are independent of extension header type so The modifiers defined are independent of the extension header type,
they can be applied equally to each one of the above tests. so they can be applied equally to each one of the above tests.
The benchmarking tests described in this section SHOULD be performed The benchmarking tests described in this section SHOULD be performed
under each of the following conditions: under each of the following conditions:
Extension header specific conditions: Extension header specific conditions:
i) IPv6 traffic with no extension headers i) IPv6 traffic with no extension headers
ii) IPv6 traffic with one extension header from the list in
section 5.3 ii) IPv6 traffic with one extension header from the list in Section
5.3
iii) IPv6 traffic with the chain of extension headers described in iii) IPv6 traffic with the chain of extension headers described in
section 5.3 Section 5.3
Coexistence-specific conditions:
Co-existence specific conditions:
iv) IPv4 ONLY traffic benchmarking iv) IPv4 ONLY traffic benchmarking
v) IPv6 ONLY traffic benchmarking v) IPv6 ONLY traffic benchmarking
vi) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 90% vs 10% vi) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 90% vs 10%
vii) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 50% vs 50% vii) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 50% vs 50%
viii) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 10% vs 90% viii) IPv4-IPv6 traffic mix with the ratio 10% vs 90%
Combining the test conditions listed for benchmarking IPv6 as a Combining the test conditions listed for benchmarking IPv6 as a
stand-alone protocol and the co-existence tests leads to a large stand-alone protocol and the coexistence tests leads to a
coverage matrix. At a minimum requirement, the co-existence tests large-coverage matrix. At a minimum requirement, the coexistence
should use IPv6 traffic with no extension headers and the 10%-90%, tests should use IPv6 traffic with no extension headers and the 10%-
90%-10% IPv4/IPv6 traffic mix. 90%, 90%-10%, or IPv4/IPv6 traffic mix.
The subsequent sections each describe specific tests that MUST be The subsequent sections each describe specific tests that MUST be
executed under the conditions listed above for a complete executed under the conditions listed above for a complete
benchmarking of IPv6 forwarding performance. benchmarking of IPv6-forwarding performance.
7.1. Throughput 7.1. Throughput
Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in RFC1242. Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in RFC1242.
Procedure: Same as RFC2544. Procedure: Same as RFC2544.
Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544. Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544.
7.2. Latency 7.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in RFC1242. Objective: To determine the latency as defined in RFC1242.
Procedure: Same as RFC2544. Procedure: Same as RFC2544.
Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544. Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544.
7.3. Frame Loss 7.3. Frame Loss
Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in RFC1242, Objective: To determine the frame-loss rate (as defined in RFC 1242)
of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame
sizes. sizes.
Procedure: Same as RFC2544. Procedure: Same as RFC2544.
Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544. Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544.
7.4. Back-to-Back Frames 7.4. Back-to-Back Frames
Based on the IPv4 experience, the back-to-back frames test is Based on the IPv4 experience, the back-to-back frames test is
characterized by significant variance due to short term variations in characterized by significant variance due to short-term variations in
the processing flow. For these reasons, this test is no longer the processing flow. For these reasons, this test is no longer
recommended for IPv6 benchmarking. recommended for IPv6 benchmarking.
7.5. System Recovery 7.5. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition. overload condition.
Procedure: Same as RFC2544. Procedure: Same as RFC2544.
skipping to change at page 14, line 7 skipping to change at page 14, line 25
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
device or software reset. device or software reset.
Procedure: Same as RFC2544. Procedure: Same as RFC2544.
Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544. Reporting Format: Same as RFC2544.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
The IANA was instructed to allocate for IPv6 benchmarking a 48 bits The IANA has allocated 2001:0200::/48 for IPv6 benchmarking, which is
prefix from the RFC 4773 pool. This allocation is similar to a 48-bit prefix from the RFC 4773 pool. This allocation is similar
198.18.0.0/15 defined in RFC 3330 [10]. This prefix length (48) to 198.18.0.0/15, defined in RFC 3330 [10]. This prefix length (48)
provides similar flexibility as the range allocated for IPv4 provides similar flexibility as the range allocated for IPv4
benchmarking and it is taking into consideration address conservation benchmarking, and it takes into consideration address conservation
and simplicity of usage concerns. The requested size meets the and simplicity of usage concerns. The requested size meets the
requirements for testing large network elements and large emulated requirements for testing large network elements and large emulated
networks. networks.
Note: Similar to RFC 2544 avoiding the use of RFC 1918 address space Note: Similar to RFC 2544 avoiding the use of RFC 1918 address space
for benchmarking tests, this document does not recommend the use of for benchmarking tests, this document does not recommend the use of
RFC 4193 [5] (Unique Local Addresses) in order to minimize the RFC 4193 [4] (Unique Local Addresses) in order to minimize the
possibility of conflicts with operational traffic. possibility of conflicts with operational traffic.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to Benchmarking activities, as described in this memo, are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above. specified in the sections above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test traffic into a production network or misroute traffic to the test
management network. management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT (System
Under Test).
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.
The isolated nature of the benchmarking environments and the fact The isolated nature of the benchmarking environments and the fact
that no special features or capabilities, other than those used in that no special features or capabilities, other than those used in
operational networks, are enabled on the DUT/SUT requires no security operational networks, are enabled on the DUT/SUT requires no security
considerations specific to the benchmarking process. considerations specific to the benchmarking process.
10. Conclusions 10. Conclusions
The Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices The Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
document, RFC2544 [9], is for the most part applicable to evaluating document, RFC2544 [9], is for the most part applicable to evaluating
the IPv6 performance of network elements. This document addresses the IPv6 performance of network elements. This document addresses
the IPv6 specific requirements that MUST be observed when applying the IPv6-specific requirements that MUST be observed when applying
the recommendations of RFC2544. These additional requirements stem the recommendations of RFC2544. These additional requirements stem
from the architecture characteristics of IPv6. This document is not from the architecture characteristics of IPv6. This document is not
a replacement of but a complement to RFC2544. a replacement for, but a complement to, RFC 2544.
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
Scott Bradner provided valuable guidance and recommendations for this Scott Bradner provided valuable guidance and recommendations for this
document. The authors acknowledge the work done by Cynthia Martin document. The authors acknowledge the work done by Cynthia Martin
and Jeff Dunn with respect to defining the terminology for IPv6 and Jeff Dunn with respect to defining the terminology for IPv6
benchmarking. The authors would like to thank Bill Kine for his benchmarking. The authors would like to thank Bill Kine for his
contribution to the initial document and to Tom Alexander, Bill contribution to the initial document and to Tom Alexander, Bill
Cerveny, Silvija Dry, Sven Lanckmans, Dean Lee, Athanassios Cerveny, Silvija Dry, Sven Lanckmans, Dean Lee, Athanassios
Liakopoulos, Benoit Lourdelet, Al Morton, David Newman, Rajiv Liakopoulos, Benoit Lourdelet, Al Morton, David Newman, Rajiv
Papejna, Dan Romascanu and Pekka Savola for their very helpful Papejna, Dan Romascanu, and Pekka Savola for their very helpful
feedback. Maryam Hamza inspired the authors in completing this feedback. Maryam Hamza inspired the authors to complete this
document. document.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) [2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery [3] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615, June
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. 1999.
[4] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615,
June 1999.
[5] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast [4] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[6] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, [5] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303,
December 2005. December 2005.
[6] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[7] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network [7] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[8] Simpson, W., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662, [8] Simpson, W., Ed., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51, RFC 1662,
July 1994. July 1994.
[9] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [9] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999. Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[10] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002. [10] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002.
[11] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix [11] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[12] Newman, D. and T. Player, "Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked [12] Newman, D. and T. Player, "Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked
Factors in Network Device Benchmarking", RFC 4814, March 2007. Factors in Network Device Benchmarking", RFC 4814, March 2007.
[13] LAN/MAN Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE [13] LAN/MAN Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE
Std 802.3as-2006, Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Std 802.3as-2006, Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer
Specifications, Amendment 3: Frame format extensions", Specifications, Amendment 3: Frame format extensions", November
November 2006. 2006.
[14] Allyn Romanow (editor), "IEEE Std 802.3ae, Media Access Control [14] Allyn Romanow (editor), "IEEE Std 802.3ae, Media Access Control
(MAC) Security", June 2006. (MAC) Security", June 2006.
[15] Mick Seaman (editor), "IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, MAC Bridges", [15] Mick Seaman (editor), "IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, MAC Bridges",
February 2004. February 2004.
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Reference Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates Reference
This appendix provides the formulas to calculate and the values for This appendix provides the formulas to calculate and the values for
skipping to change at page 16, line 46 skipping to change at page 17, line 22
The throughput in frames per second (fps) for various Ethernet The throughput in frames per second (fps) for various Ethernet
interface types and for a frame size X can be calculated with the interface types and for a frame size X can be calculated with the
following formula: following formula:
Line Rate (bps) Line Rate (bps)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
(8bits/byte)*(X+20)bytes/frame (8bits/byte)*(X+20)bytes/frame
The 20 bytes in the formula is the sum of the preamble (8 bytes) and The 20 bytes in the formula is the sum of the preamble (8 bytes) and
the inter frame gap (12 bytes). The throughput for various Ethernet the inter-frame gap (12 bytes). The throughput for various Ethernet
interface types and frame sizes: interface types and frame sizes:
Size 10Mb/s 100Mb/s 1000Mb/s 10000Mb/s Size 10Mb/s 100Mb/s 1000Mb/s 10000Mb/s
Bytes pps pps pps pps Bytes pps pps pps pps
64 14,880 148,809 1,488,095 14,880,952 64 14,880 148,809 1,488,095 14,880,952
128 8,445 84,459 844,594 8,445,945 128 8,445 84,459 844,594 8,445,945
256 4,528 45,289 452,898 4,528,985 256 4,528 45,289 452,898 4,528,985
512 2,349 23,496 234,962 2,349,624 512 2,349 23,496 234,962 2,349,624
1024 1,197 11,973 119,731 1,197,318 1024 1,197 11,973 119,731 1,197,318
1280 961 9,615 96,153 961,538 1280 961 9,615 96,153 961,538
1518 812 8,127 81,274 812,743 1518 812 8,127 81,274 812,743
1522 810 8,106 81,063 810,635 1522 810 8,106 81,063 810,635
2048 604 6,044 60,444 604,448 2048 604 6,044 60,444 604,448
4096 303 3,036 30,396 303,691 4096 303 3,036 30,396 303,691
8192 152 1,522 15,221 152,216 8192 152 1,522 15,221 152,216
9216 135 1,353 13,534 135,339 9216 135 1,353 13,534 135,339
Note: Ethernet's maximum frame rates are subject to variances due to Note: Ethernet's maximum frame rates are subject to variances due to
clock slop. The listed rates are theoretical maximums and actual clock slop. The listed rates are theoretical maximums, and actual
tests should account for a +/- 100 ppm tolerance. tests should account for a +/- 100 ppm tolerance.
A.2. Packet over SONET A.2. Packet over SONET
ANSI T1.105 SONET provides the formula for calculating the maximum ANSI T1.105 SONET provides the formula for calculating the maximum
available bandwidth for the various Packet over SONET (PoS) interface available bandwidth for the various Packet over SONET (PoS) interface
types: types:
STS-Nc (N = 3Y, where Y=1,2,3,etc) STS-Nc (N = 3Y, where Y=1,2,3,etc)
[(N*87) - N/3]*(9 rows)*(8 bit/byte)*(8000 frames/sec) [(N*87) - N/3]*(9 rows)*(8 bit/byte)*(8000 frames/sec)
Packets over SONET can use various encapsulations: PPP [4], HDLC [8] Packets over SONET can use various encapsulations: PPP [3], High-
and Frame Relay. All these encapsulations use a 4-byte header, a 2- Level Data Link Control (HDLC) [8], and Frame Relay. All these
or 4-byte FCS field and a 1-byte Flag which are all accounted for in encapsulations use a 4-byte header, a 2- or 4-byte Frame Check
Sequence (FCS) field, and a 1-byte Flag that are all accounted for in
the overall frame size. The maximum frame rate for various interface the overall frame size. The maximum frame rate for various interface
types can be calculated with the formula (where X represents the types can be calculated with the formula (where X represents the
frame size in bytes): frame size in bytes):
Line Rate (bps) Line Rate (bps)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
(8bits/byte)*(X+1)bytes/frame (8bits/byte)*(X+1)bytes/frame
The theoretical maximum frame rates for various PoS interface types The theoretical maximum frame rates for various PoS interface types
and frame sizes: and frame sizes:
skipping to change at page 18, line 18 skipping to change at page 18, line 43
47 390,000 1,560,000 6,240,000 24,960,000 99,840,000 47 390,000 1,560,000 6,240,000 24,960,000 99,840,000
64 288,000 1,152,000 4,608,000 18,432,000 73,728,000 64 288,000 1,152,000 4,608,000 18,432,000 73,728,000
128 145,116 580,465 2,321,860 9,287,441 37,149,767 128 145,116 580,465 2,321,860 9,287,441 37,149,767
256 72,840 291,361 1,165,447 4,661,789 18,647,159 256 72,840 291,361 1,165,447 4,661,789 18,647,159
512 36,491 145,964 583,859 2,335,438 9,341,754 512 36,491 145,964 583,859 2,335,438 9,341,754
1024 18,263 73,053 292,214 1,168,858 4,675,434 1024 18,263 73,053 292,214 1,168,858 4,675,434
2048 9,136 36,544 146,178 584,714 2,338,857 2048 9,136 36,544 146,178 584,714 2,338,857
4096 4,569 18,276 73,107 292,428 1,169,714 4096 4,569 18,276 73,107 292,428 1,169,714
It is important to note that throughput test results may vary from It is important to note that throughput test results may vary from
the values presented in appendices A.1 and A.2 due to bit stuffing the values presented in Appendices A.1 and A.2 due to bit stuffing
performed by various media types [12]. The theoretical throughput performed by various media types [12]. The theoretical throughput
numbers were rounded down. numbers were rounded down.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ciprian Popoviciu Ciprian Popoviciu
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Kit Creek Road Kit Creek Road
RTP, North Carolina 27709 RTP, North Carolina 27709
USA USA
Phone: 919 787 8162 Phone: 919 787 8162
Email: cpopovic@cisco.com EMail: cpopovic@cisco.com
Ahmed Hamza Ahmed Hamza
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
3000 Innovation Drive 3000 Innovation Drive
Kanata K2K 3E8 Kanata K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
Phone: 613 254 3656 Phone: 613 254 3656
Email: ahamza@cisco.com EMail: ahamza@cisco.com
Gunter Van de Velde Gunter Van de Velde
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
De Kleetlaan 6a De Kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831 Diegem 1831
Belgium Belgium
Phone: +32 2704 5473 Phone: +32 2704 5473
Email: gunter@cisco.com EMail: gunter@cisco.com
Diego Dugatkin Diego Dugatkin
IXIA FastSoft, Inc.
26601 West Agoura Rd 150 S. Los Robles Ave.
Calabasas 91302 Pasadena, CA 91101
USA USA
Phone: 818 444 3124 Phone: +1-626-357-7012
Email: diego@ixiacom.com EMail: diego@fastsoft.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
skipping to change at page 20, line 44 skipping to change at line 871
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 115 change blocks. 
248 lines changed or deleted 240 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/