draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-09.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-10.txt 
Network Working Group Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: June 2006 Expires in: September 2006
Scott Poretsky Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems Reef Point Systems
Brent Imhoff Brent Imhoff
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 2006 March 2006
Terminology for Benchmarking Terminology for Benchmarking
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
<draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-09.txt> <draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-10.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement: Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
3.14 Packet Sampling Interval.................................10 3.14 Packet Sampling Interval.................................10
3.15 Local Interface..........................................11 3.15 Local Interface..........................................11
3.16 Neighbor Interface.......................................11 3.16 Neighbor Interface.......................................11
3.17 Remote Interface.........................................11 3.17 Remote Interface.........................................11
3.18 Preferred Egress Interface...............................12 3.18 Preferred Egress Interface...............................12
3.19 Next-Best Egress Interface...............................12 3.19 Next-Best Egress Interface...............................12
3.20 Stale Forwarding.........................................13 3.20 Stale Forwarding.........................................13
3.21 Nested Convergence Events................................13 3.21 Nested Convergence Events................................13
4. IANA Considerations...........................................13 4. IANA Considerations...........................................13
5. Security Considerations.......................................14 5. Security Considerations.......................................14
6. Normative References..........................................14 6. Acknowledgements..............................................14
7. Author's Address..............................................14 7. Normative References..........................................14
8. Author's Address..............................................14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking IGP Route This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking IGP Route
Convergence. The motivation and applicability for this Convergence. The motivation and applicability for this
benchmarking is provided in [1]. The methodology to be used for benchmarking is provided in [1]. The methodology to be used for
this benchmarking is described in [2]. The methodology and this benchmarking is described in [2]. The methodology and
terminology to be used for benchmarking Route Convergence can be terminology to be used for benchmarking Route Convergence can be
applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4]. The applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [3] and OSPF [4]. The
data plane is measured to obtain black-box (externally observable) data plane is measured to obtain black-box (externally observable)
convergence benchmarking metrics. The purpose of this document is convergence benchmarking metrics. The purpose of this document is
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 20
gradually increases to equal the offered load. gradually increases to equal the offered load.
Discussion: Discussion:
The Convergence Recovery Transition is best observed for The Convergence Recovery Transition is best observed for
Full Convergence. The Convergence Event Transition may Full Convergence. The Convergence Event Transition may
not be linear. not be linear.
Measurement Units: Measurement Units:
seconds/milliseconds seconds/milliseconds
Issues: Issues: None
None
See Also: See Also:
Full Convergence Full Convergence
Rate-Derived Convergence Time Rate-Derived Convergence Time
Convergence Packet Loss Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Event Transition Convergence Event Transition
3.11 Loss-Derived Convergence Time 3.11 Loss-Derived Convergence Time
Definition: Definition:
The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to
to be achieved as calculated from the Convergence Packet to be achieved as calculated from the Convergence Packet
Loss. Loss-Derived Convergence Time can be calculated Loss. Loss-Derived Convergence Time can be calculated
from Convergence Packet Loss that occurs due to a from Convergence Packet Loss that occurs due to a
Convergence Event and Route Convergence.as shown with Convergence Event and Route Convergence as shown with
Equation 2. Equation 2.
(eq 2) Loss-Derived Convergence Time = (eq 2) Loss-Derived Convergence Time =
Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load
NOTE: Units for this measurement are NOTE: Units for this measurement are
packets / packets/second = seconds packets / packets/second = seconds
Discussion: Discussion:
Loss-Derived Convergence Time gives a better than Loss-Derived Convergence Time gives a better than
actual result when converging many routes simultaneously. actual result when converging many routes simultaneously.
skipping to change at page 14, line 14 skipping to change at page 14, line 14
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to production is not performed on devices or systems connected to production
networks. networks.
6. References 6. Acknowledgements
6.1 Normative References Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, and participants of
the BMWG for their contributions to this work.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP Data Plane [1] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-09, Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-10,
work in progress, January 2006. work in progress, March 2006.
[2] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane [2] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-09, Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-10,
work in progress, January 2006. work in progress, March 2006.
[3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual [3] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998. [4] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.
6.2 Informative References 7.2 Informative References
[5] S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained View [5] S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained View
of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001. of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001.
[6] L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized [6] L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized
Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp90-97, May 2003. Communications Magazine, pp90-97, May 2003.
7. Author's Address 8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park 8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803 Burlington, MA 01803
USA USA
Phone: + 1 508 439 9008 Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/