 1/draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvterm11.txt 20070301 22:12:56.000000000 +0100
+++ 2/draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvterm12.txt 20070301 22:12:56.000000000 +0100
@@ 1,22 +1,26 @@
Network Working Group
INTERNETDRAFT
 Expires in: November 2006
+ Expires in: August 2007
+ Intended Status: Informational
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Brent Imhoff
Juniper Networks
+
+ February 2007
+
Terminology for Benchmarking
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

+
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this InternetDraft, 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.
Status of this Memo
InternetDrafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
@@ 29,30 +33,28 @@
time. It is inappropriate to use InternetDrafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current InternetDrafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1idabstracts.txt.
The list of InternetDraft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
ABSTRACT
 This document describes the terminology for benchmarking IGP
 Route Convergence as described in Applicability document [Po061] and
 Methodology document [Po062]. The methodology and terminology are to
 be used for benchmarking Convergence Time and can be applied to
 any linkstate IGP such as ISIS [Ca90] and OSPF [Mo98]. The data plane
 is measured to obtain the convergence benchmarking metrics
 described in [Po062].
+ This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior
+ Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The terminology is to
+ be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally
+ observable (black box) data plane measurements. The terminology
+ can be applied to any linkstate IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................2
2. Existing definitions .........................................3
3. Term definitions..............................................3
3.1 Convergence Event.........................................3
3.2 Route Convergence.........................................4
3.3 Network Convergence.......................................4
@@ 74,62 +76,62 @@
3.19 NextBest Egress Interface...............................12
3.20 Stale Forwarding.........................................13
3.21 Nested Convergence Events................................13
4. IANA Considerations...........................................13
5. Security Considerations.......................................14
6. Acknowledgements..............................................14
7. Normative References..........................................14
8. Author's Address..............................................15
1. Introduction
 This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking IGP Route
 Convergence. The motivation and applicability for this
 benchmarking is provided in [Po061]. The methodology to be used for
 this benchmarking is described in [Po062]. The methodology and
 terminology to be used for benchmarking Route Convergence can be
 applied to any linkstate IGP such as ISIS [Ca90] and OSPF [Mo98]. The
 data plane is measured to obtain blackbox (externally observable)
 convergence benchmarking metrics. The purpose of this document is
 to introduce new terms required to complete execution of the IGP
 Route Convergence Methodology [Po062]. These terms apply to IPv4 and
 IPv6 traffic as well as IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs.
+ This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior
+ Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The motivation and
+ applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po07a]. The
+ methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po07m].
+ The methodology and terminology to be used for benchmarking Route
+ Convergence can be applied to any linkstate IGP such as ISIS [Ca90]
+ and OSPF [Mo98]. The data plane is measured to obtain blackbox
+ (externally observable) convergence benchmarking metrics. The
+ purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to
+ complete execution of the IGP Route Convergence Methodology [Po07m].
+ These terms apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and IGPs.
An example of Route Convergence as observed and measured from the
data plane is shown in Figure 1. The graph in Figure 1 shows
Forwarding Rate versus Time. Time 0 on the Xaxis is on the far
right of the graph. The Offered Load to the ingress interface of
 the DUT SHOULD equal the measured maximum Throughput [5,6] of the DUT
 and the Forwarding Rate [Ma98] is measured at the egress interfaces
 of the DUT. The components of the graph and the metrics are defined
 in the Term Definitions section.
+ the DUT SHOULD equal the measured maximum Throughput [Ba99][Ma98]
+ of the DUT and the Forwarding Rate [Ma98] is measured at the egress
+ interfaces of the DUT. The components of the graph and the metrics
+ are defined in the Term Definitions section.
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Convergence Convergence
Recovery Event
Instant Instant Time = 0sec
Forwarding Rate = ^ ^ ^ Offered Load =
Offered Load > \ Packet / <Max Throughput
\ Loss /<Convergence
Convergence>\ / Event Transition
Recovery Transition \ /
\_____/<Maximum Packet Loss
Xaxis = Time
Yaxis = Forwarding Rate
Figure 1. Convergence Graph
2. Existing definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119.
 RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
+ document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
+ [Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document. The term Throughput is defined in [Ba91] and [Ba99].
3. Term Definitions
3.1 Convergence Event
Definition:
The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network
that results in a change in the egress interface of the Device
@@ 154,21 +156,21 @@
3.2 Route Convergence
Definition:
Recovery from a Convergence Event indicated by the DUT
Throughput equal to the offered load.
Discussion:
Route Convergence is the action of all components of the router
being updated with the most recent route change(s) including the
 Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwaridng Information Base
+ Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base
(FIB), along with software and hardware tables. Route
Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data
Traffic to a new egress interface.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
@@ 179,22 +181,22 @@
3.3 Network Convergence
Definition:
The completion of updating of all routing tables, including the
FIB, in all routers throughout the network.
Discussion:
Network Convergence is bounded by the sum of Route Convergence
for all routers in the network. Network Convergence can be
 determined by recovery of the Throughput to equal the
 offered load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no blenders[Ca01][Ci03].
+ determined by recovery of the Throughput to equal the offered
+ load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no blenders [Ca01][Ci03].
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Route Convergence
Stale Forwarding
@@ 300,21 +302,22 @@
3.8 RateDerived Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss to persist upon
occurrence of a Convergence Event until occurrence of Route
Convergence.
RateDerived Convergence Time can be measured as the time
difference from the Convergence Event Instant to the
Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown with Equation 1.
 (eq 1) RateDerived Convergence Time =
+ Equation 1 
+ RateDerived Convergence Time =
Convergence Recovery Instant  Convergence Event Instant.
Discussion:
RateDerived Convergence Time should be measured at the maximum
Throughput. Failure to achieve Full Convergence results in
a RateDerived Convergence Time benchmark of infinity.
Measurement Units:
seconds/milliseconds
@@ 375,21 +378,22 @@
3.11 LossDerived Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to
to be achieved as calculated from the Convergence Packet
Loss. LossDerived Convergence Time can be calculated
from Convergence Packet Loss that occurs due to a
Convergence Event and Route Convergence as shown with
Equation 2.
 (eq 2) LossDerived Convergence Time =
+ Equation 2 
+ LossDerived Convergence Time =
Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load
NOTE: Units for this measurement are
packets / packets/second = seconds
Discussion:
LossDerived Convergence Time gives a better than
actual result when converging many routes simultaneously.
RateDerived Convergence Time takes the Convergence Recovery
Transition into account, but LossDerived Convergence Time
ignores the Route Convergence Recovery Transition because
@@ 398,21 +402,21 @@
Ideally, the Convergence Event Transition and Convergence
Recovery Transition are instantaneous so that the
RateDerived Convergence Time = LossDerived Convergence Time.
However, router implementations are less than ideal.
For these reasons the preferred reporting benchmark for IGP
Route Convergence is the RateDerived Convergence Time.
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Guidelines for reporting LossDerived Convergence Time are
 provided in [Po062].
+ provided in [Po07m].
Measurement Units:
seconds/milliseconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Route Convergence
Convergence Packet Loss
@@ 426,21 +430,21 @@
The amount of time for which Full Convergence is maintained
without additional packet loss.
Discussion:
The purpose of the Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time is to
produce Convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation
in Throughput after Full Convergence is observed. The
Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time to be used is calculated
as shown in Equation 3.
 (eq 3)
+ Equation 3 
Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time =
5*(Convergence Packet Loss/Offered Load)
units are packets/pps = sec
for which at least one packet per route in the FIB for all
routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT per second.
Measurement Units:
seconds or milliseconds
@@ 491,21 +495,21 @@
seconds or milliseconds
Issues:
Packet Sampling Interval can influence the Convergence Graph.
This is particularly true when implementations achieve Full
Convergence in less than 1 second. The Convergence Event
Transition and Convergence Recovery Transition can become
exaggerated when the Packet Sampling Interval is too long.
This will produce a larger than actual RateDerived
Convergence Time. The recommended value for configuration
 of the Packet Sampling Interval is provided in [Po062].
+ of the Packet Sampling Interval is provided in [Po07m].
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Event Transition
Convergence Recovery Transition
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.15 Local Interface
Definition:
An interface on the DUT.
@@ 618,25 +622,25 @@
Issues:
None
See Also:
Network Convergence
3.21 Nested Convergence Events
Definition:
 The occurence of Convergence Event while the route table
 is converging from a prior Convergence Event.
+ The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route
+ table is converging from a prior Convergence Event.
Discussion:
 The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Events
+ The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event
MUST occur with different neighbors. A common
observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be
the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the
routes of another neighbor are being installed.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
@@ 664,35 +668,36 @@
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[Ba91]Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC1242, July 1991.
[Ba99]Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices",
RFC 2544, March 1999.
+ [Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
[Ca90]Callon, R., "Use of OSI ISIS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[Ma98]Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[Mo98]Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.
 [Po061]Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP Data Plane
 Route Convergence", draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvapp11,
 work in progress, May 2006.
+ [Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for IGP Data Plane
+ Route Convergence", draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvapp12,
+ work in progress, February 2007.
 [Po062]Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
 Route Convergence", draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvmeth11,
 work in progress, May 2006.
+ [Po07m] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
+ Route Convergence", draftietfbmwgigpdataplaneconvmeth12,
+ work in progress, February 2007.
7.2 Informative References
[Ca01]S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A FineGrained View
of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001.
[Ci03]L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized
Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp9097, May 2003.
@@ 713,33 +718,34 @@
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Phone: + 1 314 378 2571
EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com
Full Copyright Statement
 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided
+ on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
+ REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
+ IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
+ WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
+ WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
+ ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
+ FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information