draft-ietf-bmwg-mcast-04.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-mcast-05.txt 
Network Working Group K. Dubray Network Working Group K. Dubray
INTERNET-DRAFT IronBridge Networks INTERNET-DRAFT IronBridge Networks
Expiration Date: January 1999 July 1998 Expiration Date: Febuary 1999 August 1998
Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
<draft-ietf-bmwg-mcast-04.txt> <Draft-ietf-bmwg-mcast-05.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net Directories on the ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
(Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
(Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
(US West Coast).
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited. this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
The purpose of this draft is to define terminology specific to the The purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to the
benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon the benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon the
tenets set forth in RFC 1242, RFC 2285, and other IETF Benchmarking tenets set forth in RFC 1242, RFC 2285, and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm. extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Network forwarding devices are being required to take a single frame Network forwarding devices are being required to take a single frame
and support delivery to a number of destinations having membership to and support delivery to a number of destinations having membership to
a particular group. As such, multicast support may place a different a particular group. As such, multicast support may place a different
burden on the resources of these network forwarding devices than with burden on the resources of these network forwarding devices than with
unicast or broadcast traffic types. unicast or broadcast traffic types.
Such burdens may not be readily apparent at first glance - the IP Such burdens may not be readily apparent at first glance - the IP
multicast packet's Class D address may be the only noticeable multicast packet's Class D address may be the only noticeable
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
Discussion: Discussion:
A brief discussion of the term, its application and any A brief discussion of the term, its application and any
restrictions on measurement procedures. restrictions on measurement procedures.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Units used to record measurements of this term, if applicable. Units used to record measurements of this term, if applicable.
[Issues:] [Issues:]
List of issues or conditions that effect this term. This List of issues or conditions that effect this term. This
field is optional in this draft. field is optional in this document.
[See Also:] [See Also:]
List of other terms that are relevant to the discussion List of other terms that are relevant to the discussion
of this term. This field is optional in this draft. of this term. This field is optional in this document.
2.1 Existing Terminology 2.1 Existing Terminology
This document draws on existing terminology defined in other BMWG This document draws on existing terminology defined in other BMWG
work. Examples include, but are not limited to: work. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Throughput (RFC 1242, section 3.17) Throughput (RFC 1242, section 3.17)
Latency (RFC 1242, section 3.8) Latency (RFC 1242, section 3.8)
Constant Load (RFC 1242, section 3.4) Constant Load (RFC 1242, section 3.4)
Frame Loss Rate (RFC 1242, section 3.6) Frame Loss Rate (RFC 1242, section 3.6)
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
Definition: Definition:
An equivalence class of packets comprising one or more data An equivalence class of packets comprising one or more data
streams. streams.
Discussion: Discussion:
In the scope of this document, Traffic Class will be considered In the scope of this document, Traffic Class will be considered
a logical identifier used to discriminate between a set or sets a logical identifier used to discriminate between a set or sets
of packets offered the DUT. of packets offered the DUT.
For example, one Traffic Class may identify a set of unicast For example, one Traffic Class may identify a set of unicast pack-
packets ets offered to the DUT. Another Traffic Class may differentiate
offered to the DUT. Another Traffic Class may differentiate the the multicast packets destined to multicast group X. Yet another
multicast packets destined to multicast group X. Yet another
Class may distinguish the set of multicast packets destined to Class may distinguish the set of multicast packets destined to
multicast group Y. multicast group Y.
Unless otherwise qualified, the usage of the word "Class" in this Unless otherwise qualified, the usage of the word "Class" in this
document will refer simply to a Traffic Class. document will refer simply to a Traffic Class.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Not applicable. Not applicable.
3.1.2 Group Class. 3.1.2 Group Class.
skipping to change at page 5, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
Unless otherwise qualified, the usage of the word "Class" in this Unless otherwise qualified, the usage of the word "Class" in this
document will refer simply to a Traffic Class. document will refer simply to a Traffic Class.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Not applicable. Not applicable.
3.1.2 Group Class. 3.1.2 Group Class.
Definition: Definition:
A specific type of Traffic Class where the packets comprising the A specific type of Traffic Class where the packets comprising the
Class Class are destined to a particular multicast group.
are destined to a particular multicast group.
Discussion: Discussion:
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Not applicable. Not applicable.
3.1.3 Service Class. 3.1.3 Service Class.
Definition: Definition:
A specific type of Traffic Class where the packets comprising the A specific type of Traffic Class where the packets comprising the
Class Class require particular treatment or treatments by the network
require particular treatment or treatments by the network
forwarding devices along the path to the packets' destination(s). forwarding devices along the path to the packets' destination(s).
Discussion: Discussion:
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Not applicable. Not applicable.
3.2 Forwarding and Throughput. 3.2 Forwarding and Throughput.
This section presents terminology related to the characterization of This section presents terminology related to the characterization of
the packet forwarding ability of a DUT/SUT in a multicast the packet forwarding ability of a DUT/SUT in a multicast
environment. environment. Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
Some metrics extend the concept of throughput presented in RFC 1242. presented in RFC 1242. The notion of Forwarding Rate is cited in
The notion of Forwarding Rate is cited in RFC 2285. RFC 2285.
3.2.1 Mixed Class Throughput (MCT). 3.2.1 Mixed Class Throughput (MCT).
Definition: Definition:
The maximum rate at which none of the offered frames, comprised The maximum rate at which none of the offered frames, comprised
from a unicast Class and a multicast Class, to be forwarded are from a unicast Class and a multicast Class, to be forwarded are
dropped by the device across a fixed number of ports. dropped by the device across a fixed number of ports.
Discussion: Discussion:
Often times, throughput is collected on a homogenous traffic Often times, throughput is collected on a homogenous traffic
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
singularly multicast. In most networking environments, the traffic singularly multicast. In most networking environments, the traffic
mix is seldom so uniformly distributed. mix is seldom so uniformly distributed.
Based on the RFC 1242 definition for throughput, the Mixed Based on the RFC 1242 definition for throughput, the Mixed
Class Throughput benchmark attempts to characterize the DUT's Class Throughput benchmark attempts to characterize the DUT's
ability to process both unicast and multicast frames in the ability to process both unicast and multicast frames in the
same aggregated traffic stream. same aggregated traffic stream.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Frames per second Frames per second
Issues: Issues:
Related methodology may have to address the ratio of unicast Related methodology may have to address the ratio of unicast
packets packets to multicast packets.
to multicast packets.
3.2.2 Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix (SGFM). 3.2.2 Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix (SGFM).
Definition: Definition:
A table that demonstrates Forwarding Rate as a function of A table that demonstrates Forwarding Rate as a function of
tested multicast groups for a fixed number of tested tested multicast groups for a fixed number of tested
DUT/SUT ports. DUT/SUT ports.
Discussion: Discussion:
A desirable attribute of many Internet mechanisms is the ability A desirable attribute of many Internet mechanisms is the ability
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
Discussion: Discussion:
A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may
not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel, not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel,
the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that
is supported by that device. is supported by that device.
More specifically, encapsulation refers to the act of taking a More specifically, encapsulation refers to the act of taking a
frame or part of a frame and embedding it as a payload of another frame or part of a frame and embedding it as a payload of another
frame. This benchmark attempts to characterize the overhead frame. This benchmark attempts to characterize the overhead
behavior behavior associated with that translational process.
associated with that translational process.
Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact
of different frame formats on usable bandwidth. of different frame formats on usable bandwidth.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Frames per second. Frames per second.
3.2.5 Decapsulation Throughput (DT) 3.2.5 Decapsulation Throughput (DT)
Definition: Definition:
The maximum rate at which frames offered a DUT are decapsulated The maximum rate at which frames offered a DUT are decapsulated
and correctly forwarded by the DUT without loss. and correctly forwarded by the DUT without loss.
Discussion: Discussion:
A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may
not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel, not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel,
the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that
is supported by that device. At some point, the frame may be is supported by that device. At some point, the frame may be
required required to be returned its orginal format from its encapsulation
to be returned its orginal format from its encapsulation wrapper wrapper for use by the frame's next destination.
for
use by the frame's next destination.
More specifically, decapsulation refers to the act of taking a More specifically, decapsulation refers to the act of taking a
frame or part of a frame embedded as a payload of another frame and frame or part of a frame embedded as a payload of another frame
returning it to the payload's appropriate format. This benchmark and returning it to the payload's appropriate format. This
attempts to characterize the overhead behavior associated with that benchmark attempts to characterize the overhead behavior associated
translational process. with that translational process.
Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact
of different frame formats on usable bandwidth. of different frame formats on usable bandwidth.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Frames per second. Frames per second.
3.2.6 Re-encapsulation Throughput (RET) 3.2.6 Re-encapsulation Throughput (RET)
Definition: Definition:
The maximum rate at which frames of one encapsulated format offered The maximum rate at which frames of one encapsulated format offered
a DUT a DUT are converted to another encapsulated format and correctly
are converted to another encapsulated format and correctly forwarded by the DUT without loss.
forwarded
by the DUT without loss.
Discussion: Discussion:
A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may A popular technique in presenting a frame to a device that may
not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel, not support a protocol feature is to encapsulate, or tunnel,
the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that the packet containing the unsupported feature in a format that
is supported by that device. At some point, the frame may be is supported by that device. At some point, the frame may be
required required to be converted from one encapsulation format to another
to be converted from one encapsulation format to another encapsulation format.
encapsulation
format.
More specifically, re-encapsulation refers to the act of taking an More specifically, re-encapsulation refers to the act of taking an
encapsulated payload of one format and replacing it with another encapsulated payload of one format and replacing it with another
encapsulated format - all the while preserving the original encapsulated format - all the while preserving the original
payload's payload's contents. This benchmark attempts to characterize the
contents. This benchmark attempts to characterize the overhead overhead behavior associated with that translational process.
behavior associated with that translational process.
Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact Consideration may need to be given with respect to the impact
of different frame formats on usable bandwidth. of different frame formats on usable bandwidth.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Frames per second. Frames per second.
3.3 Forwarding Latency. 3.3 Forwarding Latency.
This section presents terminology relating to the characterization of This section presents terminology relating to the characterization of
skipping to change at page 10, line 6 skipping to change at page 10, line 15
on the system under test. Other factors are physical topology and on the system under test. Other factors are physical topology and
"tree" configuration. "tree" configuration.
Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric, Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric,
the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or
system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices. system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices.
A consideration for the related methodology: possible need to A consideration for the related methodology: possible need to
differentiate a specifically-forwarded multicast frame from those differentiate a specifically-forwarded multicast frame from those
sprayed by protocols implementing a flooding tactic to solicit sprayed by protocols implementing a flooding tactic to solicit
prune prune feedback.
feedback.
Issues:
While this metric attempts to identify a simple delay, the
underlying and contributing delay components (e.g., propagation
delay, frame processing delay, etc.) make this a less than simple
measurement. The corresponding methodology will need to consider
this and similar factors to ensure a consistent and precise
metric result.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Microseconds. Microseconds.
3.4.2 Group Leave Delay. 3.4.2 Group Leave Delay.
Definition: Definition:
The time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to cease forwarding multicast The time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to cease forwarding multicast
packets after a corresponding IGMP "Leave Group" message has been packets after a corresponding IGMP "Leave Group" message has been
successfully offered to the DUT/SUT. successfully offered to the DUT/SUT.
skipping to change at page 10, line 34 skipping to change at page 10, line 50
Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric, Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric,
the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or
system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices. system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Microseconds. Microseconds.
Issues: Methodology may need to consider protocol-specific timeout Issues: Methodology may need to consider protocol-specific timeout
values. values.
Issues:
While this metric attempts to identify a simple delay, the
underlying and contributing delay components (e.g., propagation
delay, frame processing delay, etc.) make this a less than simple
measurement. Moreover, the cessation of traffic is a rather
unobservable event (i.e., at what point is the multicast forwarded
considered stopped on the DUT interface processing the Leave?).
The corresponding methodology will need to consider this and
similar factors to ensure a consistent and precise metric result.
The Methodology may also need to consider protocol-specific timeout
values as well.
3.5 Capacity 3.5 Capacity
This section offers terms relating to the identification of multicast This section offers terms relating to the identification of multicast
group limits of a DUT/SUT. group limits of a DUT/SUT.
3.5.1 Multicast Group Capacity. 3.5.1 Multicast Group Capacity.
Definition: Definition:
The maximum number of multicast groups a SUT/DUT can support The maximum number of multicast groups a SUT/DUT can support
while maintaining the ability to forward multicast frames while maintaining the ability to forward multicast frames
to all multicast groups registered to that SUT/DUT. to all multicast groups registered to that SUT/DUT.
Discussion: Discussion:
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Multicast groups. Multicast groups.
Issues: Issues:
The related methodology may have to consider the impact of The related methodology may have to consider the impact of
multicast multicast sources per group on the ability of a SUT/DUT to
sources per group on the ability of a SUT/DUT to "scale up" the "scale up" the number of supportable multicast groups.
number of supportable multicast groups.
3.6 Interaction 3.6 Interaction
Network forwarding devices are generally required to provide more Network forwarding devices are generally required to provide more
functionality than than the forwarding of traffic. Moreover, network functionality than than the forwarding of traffic. Moreover, network
forwarding devices may be asked to provide those functions in a forwarding devices may be asked to provide those functions in a
variety of variety of environments. This section offers terms to assist in the
environments. This section offers terms to assist in the charaterization of DUT/SUT behavior in consideration of potentially
charaterization interacting factors.
of DUT/SUT behavior in consideration of potentially interacting
factors.
3.6.1 Burdened Response. 3.6.1 Burdened Response.
Definition: Definition:
A measured response collected from a DUT/SUT in light of A measured response collected from a DUT/SUT in light of
interacting, or potentially interacting, distinct stimulii. interacting, or potentially interacting, distinct stimulii.
Discussion: Discussion:
Many metrics provide a one dimensional view into an operating Many metrics provide a one dimensional view into an operating
characteristic of a tested system. For example, the forwarding characteristic of a tested system. For example, the forwarding
rate rate metric may yield information about the packet processing
metric may yield information about the packet processing ability ability of a device. Collecting that same metric in view of
of a device. Collecting that same metric in view of another another control variable can oftentimes be very insightful. Taking
control variable can oftentimes be very insightful. Taking that that same forwarding rate measurement, for instance, while the
same device's address table is injected with an additional 50,000
forwarding rate measurement, for instance, while the device's entries may yield a different perspective.
address
table is injected with an additional 50,000 entries may yield a
different perspective.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
A burdened response is a type of metric. Metrics of this A burdened response is a type of metric. Metrics of this
this type must follow guidelines when reporting results. this type must follow guidelines when reporting results.
The metric's principal result MUST be reported in conjunction with The metric's principal result MUST be reported in conjunction with
the the contributing factors.
contributing factors.
For example, in reporting a Forwarding Burdened Latency, the For example, in reporting a Forwarding Burdened Latency, the
latency measurement should be reported with respect to latency measurement should be reported with respect to
corresponding Offered Load and Forwarding Rates. corresponding Offered Load and Forwarding Rates.
Issues: Issues:
A Burdened response may be very illuminating when trying to A Burdened response may be very illuminating when trying to
characterize a single device or system. Extreme care must characterize a single device or system. Extreme care must
be exercised when attempting to use that characterization as be exercised when attempting to use that characterization as
a basis of comparison with other devices or systems. Test agents a basis of comparison with other devices or systems. Test agents
skipping to change at page 12, line 16 skipping to change at page 12, line 47
a timer impacting a response process. a timer impacting a response process.
3.6.2 Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency. 3.6.2 Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency.
Definition: Definition:
A multicast latency taken from a DUT/SUT in the presence of A multicast latency taken from a DUT/SUT in the presence of
a traffic forwarding requirement. a traffic forwarding requirement.
Discussion: Discussion:
This burdened response metric builds on the Multicast Latency This burdened response metric builds on the Multicast Latency
definition definition offered in section 3.3.1. It mandates that the DUT be
offered in section 3.3.1. It mandates that the DUT be subjected to subjected to an additional measure of traffic not required by the
an additional measure of traffic not required by the non-burdened non-burdened metric.
metric.
This metric attempts to provide a means by which to evaluate This metric attempts to provide a means by which to evaluate
how traffic load may or may not impact a device's or system's how traffic load may or may not impact a device's or system's
packet processing delay. packet processing delay.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Time units with enough precision to reflect the latencies Time units with enough precision to reflect the latencies
measurements. measurements.
Latency measurements MUST be reported with the corresponding Latency measurements MUST be reported with the corresponding
sustained sustained Forwarding Rate and associated Offered Load.
Forwarding Rate and associated Offered Load.
3.6.3 Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay. 3.6.3 Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay.
Definition: Definition:
A multicast Group Join Delay taken from a DUT/SUT in the presence A multicast Group Join Delay taken from a DUT/SUT in the presence
of of a traffic forwarding requirement.
a traffic forwarding requirement.
Discussion: Discussion:
This burdened response metric builds on the Group Join Delay This burdened response metric builds on the Group Join Delay
definition definition offered in section 3.4.1. It mandates that the DUT be
offered in section 3.4.1. It mandates that the DUT be subjected to subjected to an additional measure of traffic not required by the
an additional measure of traffic not required by the non-burdened non-burdened metric.
metric.
Many factors can contribute to different results, such as Many factors can contribute to different results, such as
the number or type of multicast-related protocols configured the number or type of multicast-related protocols configured
on the system under test. Other factors could be physical topology on the system under test. Other factors could be physical topology
or the logical multicast "tree" configuration. or the logical multicast "tree" configuration.
Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric, Because of the number of variables that could impact this metric,
the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or the metric may be a better characterization tool for a device or
system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices. system rather than a basis for comparisons with other devices.
Measurement units: Measurement units:
Time units with enough precision to reflect the delay measurements. Time units with enough precision to reflect the delay measurements.
Delay measurements MUST be reported with the corresponding Delay measurements MUST be reported with the corresponding
sustained sustained Forwarding Rate and associated Offered Load.
Forwarding Rate and associated Offered Load.
4. Security Considerations Issues:
While this metric attempts to identify a simple delay, the
underlying and contributing delay components (e.g., propagation
delay, frame processing delay, etc.) make this a less than simple
measurement. The corresponding methodology will need to consider
this and similar factors to ensure a consistent and precise
metric result.
4. Security Considerations
This document addresses metrics and terminology relating to the This document addresses metrics and terminology relating to the
performance benchmarking of IP Multicast forwarding devices. performance benchmarking of IP Multicast forwarding devices.
The information contained in this document does not impact the The information contained in this document does not impact the
security of the Internet. security of the Internet.
Methodologies regarding the collection of the metrics described Methodologies regarding the collection of the metrics described
within this document may need to cite security considerations. within this document may need to cite security considerations.
This document does not address methodological issues. This document does not address methodological issues.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The IETF BMWG participants have made several comments and suggestions The IETF BMWG participants have made several comments and suggestions
regarding this work. Particular thanks goes to Scott Bradner, Brad regarding this work. Particular thanks goes to Harald Alvestrand,
Cain, Eric Crawley, Bob Mandeville, David Newman, Shuching Sheih, Scott Bradner, Brad Cain, Eric Crawley, Bob Mandeville, David Newman,
Dave Thaler, Chuck Winter, Zhaohui Zhang, and John Galgay for their Shuching Sheih, Dave Thaler, Chuck Winter, Zhaohui Zhang, and John
insightful review and assistance. Galgay for their insightful review and assistance.
6. References 6. References
[Br91] Bradner, S. Benchmarking Terminology for Network [Br91] Bradner, S. Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices. RFC 1242. July, 1991. Interconnection Devices. RFC 1242. July, 1991.
[Br96] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J. Benchmarking Methodology for Network [Br96] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J. Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices. RFC 1944. May, 1996. Interconnect Devices. RFC 1944. May, 1996.
[Hu95] Huitema, C. "Routing in the Internet." Prentice-Hall, 1995. [Hu95] Huitema, C. "Routing in the Internet." Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[Se98] Semeria, C. and Maufer, T. "Introduction to IP Multicast [Se98] Semeria, C. and Maufer, T. "Introduction to IP Multicast
Routing." http://www.3com.com/nsc/501303.html 3Com Corp., 1998. Routing." http://www.3com.com/nsc/501303.html 3Com Corp., 1998.
[Ma98] Mandeville, R. Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching [Ma98] Mandeville, R. Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices. Devices. RFC 2285. February, 1998.
RFC 2285. February, 1998.
[Mt98] Maufer, T. "Deploying IP Multicast in the Enterprise." [Mt98] Maufer, T. "Deploying IP Multicast in the Enterprise."
Prentice- Prentice-Hall, 1998.
Hall, 1998.
7. Author's Address 7. Author's Address
Kevin Dubray Kevin Dubray
IronBridge Networks IronBridge Networks
55 Hayden Avenue 55 Hayden Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421 Lexington, MA 02421
USA USA
Phone: 781 402 8018 Phone: 781 402 8018
EMail: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com EMail: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/