draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-17.txt | draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-18.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|

Network Working Group S. Poretsky | ||||

Internet Draft Allot Communications | ||||

Expires: September 08, 2009 | ||||

Intended Status: Informational Brent Imhoff | ||||

Juniper Networks | ||||

March 08, 2009 | ||||

Terminology for Benchmarking | Network Working Group S. Poretsky | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | Internet-Draft Allot Communications | |||

Intended status: Informational B. Imhoff | ||||

Expires: January 14, 2010 Juniper Networks | ||||

K. Michielsen | ||||

Cisco Systems | ||||

July 13, 2009 | ||||

<draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-17.txt> | Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | |||

draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-18 | ||||

Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | |||

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material | |||

from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly | ||||

available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the | ||||

copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF | ||||

Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the | ||||

IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from | ||||

the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this | ||||

document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and | ||||

derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards | ||||

Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to | ||||

translate it into languages other than English. | ||||

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||

Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||

Drafts. | 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." | |||

skipping to change at page 1, line 31 | skipping to change at page 1, line 41 | |||

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||

Drafts. | 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." | |||

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||

http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||

This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2009. | This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010. | |||

Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||

document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of | |||

publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). | publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). | |||

Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||

and restrictions with respect to this document. | and restrictions with respect to this document. | |||

ABSTRACT | Abstract | |||

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 link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF. | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | 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 link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF. | ||||

Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||

1. Introduction and Scope........................................3 | ||||

2. Existing Definitions .........................................4 | 1. Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||

3. Term Definitions..............................................4 | 2. Existing Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||

3.1 States | 3. Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||

3.1.1 Route Convergence....................................4 | 3.1. Convergence Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||

3.1.2 Full Convergence.....................................5 | 3.1.1. Route Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||

3.1.3 Network Convergence..................................5 | 3.1.2. Full Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||

3.1.4 Route-Specific Convergence...........................6 | 3.1.3. Network Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||

3.1.5 Stale Forwarding.....................................6 | 3.2. Instants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||

3.2 Events | 3.2.1. Convergence Event Instant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||

3.2.1 Convergence Event....................................7 | 3.2.2. Convergence Recovery Instant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||

3.2.2 Convergence Event Trigger............................7 | 3.2.3. First Route Convergence Instant . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||

3.2.3 Convergence Event Instant............................8 | 3.3. Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||

3.2.4 Convergence Recovery Instant.........................8 | 3.3.1. Convergence Event Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||

3.2.5 First Route Convergence Instant......................9 | 3.3.2. Convergence Recovery Transition . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||

3.2.6 Convergence Event Transition.........................9 | 3.4. Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||

3.2.7 Convergence Recovery Transition......................10 | 3.4.1. Local Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||

3.2.8 Nested Convergence Events............................10 | 3.4.2. Remote Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||

3.3 Interfaces | 3.4.3. Preferred Egress Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||

3.3.1 Local Interface......................................11 | 3.4.4. Next-Best Egress Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||

3.3.2 Neighbor Interface...................................11 | 3.5. Benchmarking Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||

3.3.3 Remote Interface.....................................11 | 3.5.1. Rate-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||

3.3.4 Preferred Egress Interface...........................12 | 3.5.2. Loss-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||

3.3.5 Next-Best Egress Interface...........................12 | 3.5.3. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||

3.4 Benchmarking Method | 3.6. Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||

3.4.1 Packet Loss..........................................13 | 3.6.1. Full Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||

3.4.2 Convergence Packet Loss..............................13 | 3.6.2. First Route Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||

3.4.3 Rate-Derived Convergence Method......................14 | 3.6.3. Route-Specific Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||

3.4.4 Loss-Derived Convergence Method......................14 | 3.6.4. Loss-Derived Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||

3.4.5 Packet Sampling Interval.............................15 | 3.6.5. Route Loss of Connectivity Period . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||

3.5 Benchmarks | 3.6.6. Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period . . . . . . . 20 | |||

3.5.1 Full Convergence Time................................17 | 3.7. Measurement Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||

3.5.2 First Route Convergence Time.........................17 | 3.7.1. Convergence Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||

3.5.3 Route-Specific Convergence Time......................17 | 3.7.2. Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||

3.5.4 Sustained Convergence Validation Time................18 | 3.7.3. Convergence Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||

3.5.5 Reversion Convergence Time...........................19 | 3.7.4. Connectivity Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||

4. IANA Considerations...........................................19 | 3.7.5. Packet Sampling Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||

5. Security Considerations.......................................19 | 3.7.6. Sustained Convergence Validation Time . . . . . . . . 23 | |||

6. Acknowledgements..............................................20 | 3.8. Miscellaneous Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||

7. References....................................................20 | 3.8.1. Stale Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||

8. Author's Address..............................................21 | 3.8.2. Nested Convergence Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||

5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||

6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||

7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||

7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||

7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | ||||

Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | ||||

1. Introduction and Scope | 1. Introduction and Scope | |||

This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior | This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Link-State | |||

Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The motivation and | Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Convergence. The motivation and | |||

applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po07a]. The | applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po09a]. The | |||

methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po07m]. | methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po09m]. | |||

The purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to | The purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to | |||

complete execution of the IGP Route Convergence Methodology [Po07m]. | complete execution of the IGP Route Methodology [Po09m]. | |||

These terms apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and IGPs. | ||||

Convergence times are measured at the Tester on the data plane by | IGP convergence time is measured on the data plane at the Tester by | |||

observing packet loss through the DUT. The methodology and | observing packet loss through the DUT. The methodology and | |||

terminology to be used for benchmarking Route Convergence can be | terminology to be used for benchmarking IGP Convergence can be | |||

applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [Ca90] and OSPF [Mo98]. | applied to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and link-state IGPs such as ISIS | |||

The data plane is measured to obtain black-box (externally | [Ca90][Ho08], OSPF [Mo98][Co08], and others. | |||

observable) convergence benchmarking metrics. When there is no | ||||

packer loss observed in the data plane, the convergence time | ||||

SHALL be reported as zero. | ||||

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 X-axis is on the far | ||||

right of the graph. The Offered Load to the ingress interface of | ||||

the DUT SHOULD equal the measured Throughput [Ba99][Ma98] of the DUT | ||||

and the Forwarding Rate [Ma98] and Convergence Packet Loss is | ||||

measured at the Preferred and Next-Best Egress interfaces of the DUT | ||||

befire, during, and after a Convergence Event Trigger. These | ||||

components of the graph are defined in the Term Definitions section. | ||||

Full Convergence-> Convergence Convergence | ||||

Recovery Event Event Time= | ||||

Instant Instant Trigger 0sec | ||||

Forwarding Rate= ^ ^ ^ ^ Offered Load= | ||||

Offered Load --> ------\ Packet /----------- <--Max Throughput | ||||

\ Loss /<----Convergence | ||||

Convergence------->\ / Event Transition | ||||

Recovery Transition \ / | ||||

\_____/<------Maximum Packet Loss | ||||

^ | ||||

First Route | ||||

Convergence Instant | ||||

Y-axis = Forwarding Rate | ||||

X-axis = Time (increases right to left to match commercial test | ||||

equipment displays) | ||||

Figure 1. Convergence Graph | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

2. Existing Definitions | 2. Existing Definitions | |||

This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG | ||||

work. Examples include, but are not limited to: | ||||

Latency [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.8] | This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG work. | |||

Frame Loss Rate [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.6] | Examples include, but are not limited to: | |||

Throughput [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.17] | ||||

Frame Loss Rate [Ref.[Br91], section 3.6] | ||||

Throughput [Ref.[Br91], section 3.17] | ||||

Offered Load [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.5.2] | ||||

Forwarding Rate [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.6.1] | ||||

Device Under Test (DUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.1] | Device Under Test (DUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.1] | |||

System Under Test (SUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.2] | System Under Test (SUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.2] | |||

Out-of-order Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2] | Out-of-order Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2] | |||

Duplicate Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.3] | Duplicate Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.3] | |||

Packet Reordering [Ref.[Mo06], section 3.3] | Packet Reordering [Ref.[Mo06], section 3.3] | |||

Stream [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2] | ||||

Flow [Ref.[Po06], section 3.1.5] | ||||

Forwarding Delay [Ref.[Po06], section 3.2.4] | ||||

Loss Period [Ref.[Ko02], section 4] | ||||

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 | 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 | [Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the | |||

intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this | intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this | |||

document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track | document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track | |||

document. | document. | |||

3. Term Definitions | 3. Term Definitions | |||

3.1 States | 3.1. Convergence Types | |||

3.1.1 Route Convergence | ||||

3.1.1. Route Convergence | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The action to update all components of the router with the | ||||

most recent route change(s) including the Routing | The process of updating all components of the router, including the | |||

Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB), | Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB), | |||

along with software and hardware tables, such that forwarding | along with software and hardware tables, with the most recent route | |||

is successful for one or more route entries. | change(s) such that forwarding for a route entry is successful on the | |||

Next-Best Egress Interface. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. | ||||

Route Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting | Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Route | |||

of data traffic to the Next-best Egress Interface. Also, | Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data | |||

completion of Route Convergence may or may not be sustained | traffic for a destination matching a route entry to the Next-best | |||

over time. | Egress Interface. Completion of Route Convergence may or may not be | |||

sustained over time. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Network Convergence | ||||

Full Convergence | ||||

Convergence Event | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.1.2 Full Convergence | Network Convergence, Full Convergence, Convergence Event | |||

3.1.2. Full Convergence | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

Route Convergence for an entire FIB in which complete recovery | ||||

from the Convergence Event is indicated by the DUT throughput | Route Convergence for all routes in the FIB. | |||

equal to the offered load. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

When benchmarking convergence, it is useful to measure | ||||

the time to converge an entire FIB. For example, | ||||

a Convergence Event can be produced for an OSPF table of | ||||

5000 routes so that the time to converge routes 1 through | ||||

5000 is measured. Completion of Full Convergence is externally | ||||

observable from the data plane when the Throughput of the data | ||||

plane traffic on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the | ||||

offered load. | ||||

Full Convergence MAY be measured using Rate-Derived Convergence | Full Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. Full | |||

Method or calculated using Loss-Derived Convergence Method. | Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data | |||

Full Convergence may or may not be sustained over time. The | traffic to destinations matching all route entries to the Next-best | |||

Sustained Convergence Validation Time MUST be applied. | Egress Interface. Completion of Full Convergence is externally | |||

observable from the data plane when the Forwarding Rate of the data | ||||

plane traffic on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the Offered | ||||

Load. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | Completion of Full Convergence may or may not be sustained over time. | |||

Measurement Units: N/A | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Network Convergence | ||||

Route Convergence | ||||

Convergence Event | ||||

3.1.3 Network Convergence | Network Convergence, Route Convergence, Convergence Event, Full | |||

Convergence Time, Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

3.1.3. Network Convergence | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The process of updating of all routing tables, including | ||||

distributed FIBs, in all routers throughout the network. | Full Convergence in all routers throughout the network. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Network Convergence requires completion of all Route | ||||

Convergence operations for all routers in the network following | Network Convergence includes all Route Convergence operations for all | |||

a Convergence Event. Completion of Network Convergence can be | routers in the network following a Convergence Event. | |||

observed by recovery of System Under Test (SUT) Throughput to | ||||

equal the offered load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no | Completion of Network Convergence can be observed by recovery of the | |||

Blenders [Ca01][Ci03]. | network Forwarding Rate to equal the Offered Load, with no Stale | |||

Forwarding, and no Blenders [Ca01][Ci03]. | ||||

Completion of Network Convergence may or may not be sustained over | ||||

time. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Route Convergence | ||||

Stale Forwarding | ||||

3.1.4 Route-Specific Convergence | Route Convergence, Full Convergence, Stale Forwarding | |||

3.2. Instants | ||||

3.2.1. Convergence Event Instant | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

Route Convergence for one or more specific route entries in | ||||

the FIB in which recovery from the Convergence Event is | The time instant that a Convergence Event occurs. | |||

indicated when data-plane traffic for the flow [Po06] matching | ||||

that route entry(ies) is routed to the Next-Best Egress | ||||

Interface. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

When benchmarking convergence, it is sometimes useful to | ||||

measure the time to converge a single flow [Po06] or group of | ||||

flows to benchmark convergence time for one or a few route | ||||

entries in the FIB instead of the entire FIB. Route-Specific | ||||

Convergence of a flow is externally observable from the data | ||||

plane when the data plane traffic for that flow is routed to | ||||

the Next-Best Egress Interface. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | If the Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss on the | |||

Preferred Egress Interface, the Convergence Event Instant is | ||||

observable from the data plane as the instant that the DUT begins to | ||||

exhibit packet loss. | ||||

The Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Convergence Event | ||||

Instant if it is not observable from the data plane. | ||||

Measurement Units: | ||||

hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is | ||||

microseconds. | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: Convergence Event | |||

Full Convergence | ||||

Route Convergence | 3.2.2. Convergence Recovery Instant | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

3.1.5 Stale Forwarding | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist | ||||

or to route entries with next-hops that are no longer preferred. | The time instant that Full Convergence has completed. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and can | ||||

manifest as a "black-hole" or microloop that produces packet | ||||

loss. Stale Forwarding can exist until Network Convergence is | ||||

completed. Stale Forwarding cannot be observed with a single | ||||

DUT. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | The Full Convergence completed state MUST be maintained for an | |||

interval of duration equal to the Sustained Convergence Validation | ||||

Time in order to validate the Convergence Recovery Instant. | ||||

The Convergence Recovery Instant is observable from the data plane as | ||||

the instant the DUT forwards traffic to all destinations over the | ||||

Next-Best Egress Interface. | ||||

When using the Rate-Derived Method, the Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

falls within the Packet Sampling Interval preceding the first | ||||

interval where the observed Forwarding Rate on the Next-Best Egress | ||||

Interface equals the Offered Load. | ||||

Measurement Units: | ||||

hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is | ||||

microseconds. | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Network Convergence | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.2 Events | Sustained Convergence Validation Time, Full Convergence | |||

3.2.1 Convergence Event | 3.2.3. First Route Convergence Instant | |||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The occurrence of a planned or unplanned event in the network | ||||

that results in a change in the egress interface of the Device | The time instant the first route entry completes Route Convergence | |||

Under Test (DUT) for routed packets. | following a Convergence Event | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Convergence Events include link loss, routing protocol session | ||||

loss, router failure, configuration change, and better next-hop | Any route may be the first to complete Route Convergence. The First | |||

learned via a routing protocol. | Route Convergence Instant is observable from the data plane as the | |||

instant that the first packet is received from the Next-Best Egress | ||||

Interface. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Measurement Units: | |||

N/A | ||||

Issues: | hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is | |||

None | microseconds. | |||

See Also: | Issues: None | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Convergence Event Instant | ||||

3.2.2 Convergence Event Trigger | See Also: Route Convergence | |||

3.3. Transitions | ||||

3.3.1. Convergence Event Transition | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

An action taken by the Tester to produce a Convergence Event. | ||||

A time interval following a Convergence Event in which Forwarding | ||||

Rate on the Preferred Egress Interface gradually reduces to zero. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Convergence Event Trigger is introduced by the Tester and | ||||

may be indicated by link loss, routing protocol session loss, | ||||

router failure, configuration change, or a better next-hop | ||||

learned via a routing protocol introduced by the Tester. | ||||

Measurement Units: | The Forwarding Rate during a Convergence Event Transition may not | |||

N/A | decrease linearly. | |||

Issues: | The Forwarding Rate observed on all DUT egress interfaces may or may | |||

None | not decrease to zero. | |||

The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Event | ||||

Transition using the Rate-Derived Method. This is further discussed | ||||

with the term "Rate-Derived Method". | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | ||||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.2.3 Convergence Event Instant | Convergence Event, Rate-Derived Method | |||

3.3.2. Convergence Recovery Transition | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The time instant that a Convergence Event becomes observable in | ||||

the data plane. | A time interval following the First Route Convergence Instant in | |||

which Forwarding Rate on the Next-Best Egress Interface gradually | ||||

increases to equal the Offered Load. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data | ||||

plane as the precise time that the device under test begins | ||||

to exhibit packet loss. The Convergence Event Instant is | ||||

produced by the Convergence Event Trigger. The Convergence | ||||

Event Instant always occurs concurrent or subsequent to the | ||||

Tester introducing the Convergence Event Trigger. | ||||

Measurement Units: | The Forwarding Rate observed during a Convergence Recovery Transition | |||

hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, | may not increase linearly. | |||

where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. | ||||

The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery | ||||

Transition using the Rate-Derived Method. This is further discussed | ||||

with the term "Rate-Derived Method". | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

3.2.4 Convergence Recovery Instant | Full Convergence,First Route Convergence Instant, Rate-Derived Method | |||

3.4. Interfaces | ||||

3.4.1. Local Interface | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The time instant that Full Convergence completion is | ||||

observed. | An interface on the DUT. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Convergence Recovery Instant is measurable from the data | ||||

plane as the precise time that the device under test completes | ||||

Full Convergence. The Convergence Recovery Instant MUST be | ||||

maintained for an interval of duration equal to the Sustained | ||||

Convergence Validation Time. | ||||

Measurement Units: | A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure occurred | |||

hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, | directly on the DUT. | |||

where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. | ||||

Issues: | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

None | ||||

See Also: | Issues: None | |||

Sustained Convergence Validation Time | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss | See Also: Remote Interface | |||

Convergence Event Instant | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | 3.4.2. Remote Interface | |||

3.2.5 First Route Convergence Instant | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The time instant a first route entry has converged | ||||

following a Convergence Event, as observed by receipt of | An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly connected | |||

the first packet from the Next-Best Egress Interface. | to any interface on the DUT. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The First Route Convergence Instant is an indication that the | ||||

process to achieve Full Convergence has begun. Any route may | ||||

be the first to converge for First Route Convergence Instant. | ||||

Measurement on the data-plane enables the First Route | ||||

Convergence Instant to be observed without any white-box | ||||

information from the DUT. | ||||

Measurement Units: | A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure occurred | |||

hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, | on a neighbor router's interface that is not directly connected to | |||

where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. | the DUT. | |||

Issues: | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

None | ||||

See Also: | Issues: None | |||

Route Convergence | ||||

Full Convergence | See Also: Local Interface | |||

Stale Forwarding | ||||

3.4.3. Preferred Egress Interface | ||||

3.2.6 Convergence Event Transition | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

A time interval observed following a Convergence Event in which | ||||

Throughput gradually reduces to a minimum value. | The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the | |||

preferred next-hop. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Convergence Event Transition is best observed for Full | ||||

Convergence. The egress packet rate observed during a | ||||

Convergence Event Transition may not decrease linearly and may | ||||

not decrease to zero. Both the offered load and the Packet | ||||

Sampling Interval influence the observations of the Convergence | ||||

Event Transition. For example, it is possible that if the | ||||

Convergence Event were to cause the Throughput [Ba91] to drop | ||||

to zero then this may not be observed if the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval is set too high. This is further discussed with the | ||||

term "Packet Sampling Interval". | ||||

Measurement Units: | The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior to a | |||

seconds | Convergence Event. | |||

Measurement Units: N/A | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

See Also: | See Also: Next-Best Egress Interface | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

Full Convergence | ||||

Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

3.2.7 Convergence Recovery Transition | 3.4.4. Next-Best Egress Interface | |||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The characteristic of the DUT in which Throughput gradually | ||||

increases to equal the offered load. | The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the second- | |||

best next-hop. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Convergence Recovery Transition is best observed for | ||||

Full Convergence. The egress packet rate observed during | ||||

a Convergence Recovery Transition may not increase linearly. | ||||

Both the offered load and the Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery | ||||

Transition. This is further discussed with the term | ||||

"Packet Sampling Interval". | ||||

Measurement Units: | The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface after a | |||

seconds | Convergence Event. | |||

The Next-Best Egress Interface is of the same media type and link | ||||

speed as the Preferred Egress Interface. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: Preferred Egress Interface | |||

Full Convergence | ||||

Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

3.2.8 Nested Convergence Events | 3.5. Benchmarking Methods | |||

3.5.1. Rate-Derived Method | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route | ||||

table is converging from a prior Convergence Event. | The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from observing | |||

Forwarding Rate each Packet Sampling Interval. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event | ||||

MUST occur with different neighbors. A common | Figure 1 shows an example of the Forwarding Rate change in time | |||

observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be | during convergence as observed when using the Rate-Derived Method. | |||

the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the | ||||

routes of another neighbor are being installed. | ^ Convergence | |||

Fwd | Recovery | ||||

Rate | Instant | ||||

| Offered ^ | ||||

| Load --> ----------\ /----------- | ||||

| \ /<--- Convergence | ||||

| \ Packet / Recovery | ||||

| Convergence --->\ Loss / Transition | ||||

| Event \ / | ||||

| Transition \---------/ <-- Max Packet Loss | ||||

| | ||||

+---------------------------------------------------------> | ||||

^ ^ time | ||||

Convergence First Route | ||||

Event Instant Convergence Instant | ||||

Figure 1: Rate-Derived Convergence Graph | ||||

The Offered Load SHOULD consists of a single Stream [Po06]. If | ||||

sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for | ||||

all Streams MUST be added together. | ||||

The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed | ||||

such that all routes in the FIB are matched and each route is offered | ||||

an equal share of the total Offered Load. | ||||

At least one packet per route in the FIB for all routes in the FIB | ||||

MUST be offered to the DUT within each Packet Sampling Interval. | ||||

The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval influence the observations for the Rate-Derived Method. It | ||||

may be difficult to identify the different convergence time instants | ||||

in the Rate-Derived Convergence Graph. For example, it is possible | ||||

that a Convergence Event causes the Forwarding Rate to drop to zero, | ||||

while this may not be observed in the Forwarding Rate measurements if | ||||

the Packet Sampling Interval is too high. | ||||

Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include | ||||

Forwarding Rate and packet loss. | ||||

Rate-Derived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure convergence | ||||

time benchmarks. | ||||

To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do | ||||

not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the | ||||

Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp of | ||||

the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe | ||||

Forwarding Rate seperately on the Next-Best Egress Interface. | ||||

Since the Rate-Derived Method does not distinguish between individual | ||||

traffic destinations, it SHOULD NOT be used for any route specific | ||||

measurements. Therefor Rate-Derived Method SHOULD NOT be used to | ||||

benchmark Route Loss of Connectivity Period. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.3 Interfaces | Packet Sampling Interval, Convergence Event, Convergence Event | |||

Instant, Full Convergence | ||||

3.3.1 Local Interface | 3.5.2. Loss-Derived Method | |||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

An interface on the DUT. | ||||

The method to calculate the Loss-Derived Convergence Time and Loss- | ||||

Derived Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks from the amount of | ||||

packet loss. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure | ||||

occurred directly on the DUT. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | The Offered Load SHOULD consists of a single Stream [Po06]. If | |||

sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic rate statistics for | ||||

all Streams MUST be added together. | ||||

The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed | ||||

such that all routes in the FIB are matched and each route is offered | ||||

an equal share of the total Offered Load. | ||||

Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with Rate-Derived | ||||

Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. The total | ||||

amount of Convergence Packet Loss is collected after Full Convergence | ||||

completion. | ||||

To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the | ||||

Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress | ||||

interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss). | ||||

To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do | ||||

not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the | ||||

Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp of | ||||

the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe packet | ||||

loss seperately on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Convergence Packet | ||||

Loss). | ||||

Since Loss-Derived Method does not distinguish between traffic | ||||

destinations and the packet loss statistics are only collected after | ||||

Full Convergence completion, this method can only be used to measure | ||||

average values over all routes. For these reasons Loss-Derived | ||||

Method can only be used to benchmark Loss-Derived Convergence Time | ||||

and Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period. | ||||

Note that the Loss-Derived Method measures an average over all | ||||

routes, including the routes that may not be impacted by the | ||||

Convergence Event, such as routes via non-impacted members of ECMP or | ||||

parallel links. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Neighbor Interface | ||||

Remote Interface | ||||

3.3.2 Neighbor Interface | Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity | |||

Period, Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

3.5.3. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The interface on the neighbor router or tester that is | ||||

directly linked to the DUT's Local Interface. | The method to calculate the Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmark | |||

from the amount of packet loss during convergence for a specific | ||||

route entry. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

A failure of a Neighbor Interface indicates that a | ||||

failure occurred on a neighbor router's interface that | ||||

directly links the neighbor router to the DUT. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | To benchmark Route-Specific Convergence Time, the Tester provides an | |||

Offered Load that consists of multiple Streams [Po06]. Each Stream | ||||

has a single destination address matching a different route entry, | ||||

for every route entry in the FIB. Convergence Packet Loss is | ||||

measured for each Stream separately. | ||||

Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with | ||||

Rate-Derived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion. | ||||

The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss for each Stream is | ||||

collected after Full Convergence completion. | ||||

Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method is a RECOMMENDED method to measure | ||||

convergence time benchmarks. | ||||

To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks, the | ||||

Tester SHOULD in general observe packet loss on all DUT egress | ||||

interfaces (Connectivity Packet Loss). | ||||

To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that do | ||||

not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the | ||||

Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp of | ||||

the Convergence Event Instant and the Tester SHOULD observe packet | ||||

loss seperately on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Convergence Packet | ||||

Loss). | ||||

Since Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method uses traffic streams to | ||||

individual routes, it measures packet loss as it would be experienced | ||||

by a network user. For this reason Route-Specific Loss-Derived | ||||

Method is RECOMMENDED to measure Route-Specific Convergence Time | ||||

benchmarks and Route Loss of Connectivity Period benchmarks. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Local Interface | ||||

Remote Interface | ||||

3.3.3 Remote Interface | Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

3.6. Benchmarks | ||||

3.6.1. Full Convergence Time | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly | ||||

connected to any interface on the DUT. | The time duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant | |||

and the Convergence Recovery Instant as observed using the Rate- | ||||

Derived Method. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure | ||||

occurred on a neighbor router's interface that is not | ||||

directly connected to the DUT. | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | Using the Rate-Derived Method, Full Convergence Time can be | |||

calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event | ||||

Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown in Equation 1. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Full Convergence Time = | |||

N/A | Convergence Recovery Instant - Convergence Event Instant | |||

Issues: | Equation 1 | |||

None | ||||

The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate | ||||

observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester. | ||||

For the testcases described in [Po09m], it is expected that Full | ||||

Convergence Time equals the maximum Route-Specific Convergence Time | ||||

when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the Route-Specific Loss- | ||||

Derived Method. | ||||

It is not possible to measure Full Convergence Time using the Loss- | ||||

Derived Method. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | ||||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Local Interface | ||||

Neighbor Interface | ||||

3.3.4 Preferred Egress Interface | Full Convergence, Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived | |||

Method | ||||

3.6.2. First Route Convergence Time | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the | ||||

preferred next-hop. | The duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant and | |||

the First Route Convergence Instant as observed using the Rate- | ||||

Derived Method. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior | ||||

to a Convergence Event. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Using the Rate-Derived Method, First Route Convergence Time can be | |||

N/A | calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event | |||

Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant, as shown with | ||||

Equation 2. | ||||

Issues: | First Route Convergence Time = | |||

None | First Route Convergence Instant - Convergence Event Instant | |||

Equation 2 | ||||

The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding Rate | ||||

observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester. | ||||

For the testcases described in [Po09m], it is expected that First | ||||

Route Convergence Time equals the minimum Route-Specific Convergence | ||||

Time when benchmarking all routes in FIB using the Route-Specific | ||||

Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

It is not possible to measure First Route Convergence Time using the | ||||

Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | ||||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Next-Best Egress Interface | ||||

3.3.5 Next-Best Egress Interface | Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method, First Route | |||

Convergence Instant | ||||

3.6.3. Route-Specific Convergence Time | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the | ||||

second-best next-hop. It is the same media type and link speed | The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to be completed for | |||

as the Preferred Egress Interface | a specific route, as calculated from the amount of packet loss during | |||

convergence for a single route entry. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface | ||||

after a Convergence Event. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Route-Specific Convergence Time can only be measured using the Route- | |||

N/A | Specific Loss-Derived Method. | |||

If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss | ||||

for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet | ||||

Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined | ||||

packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and Next-Best | ||||

Egress Interface. When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence Time, | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 3 is applied for | ||||

each measured route. The calculation is equal to Equation 7 in | ||||

Section 3.6.5. | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence Time = | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route | ||||

Equation 3 | ||||

If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic | ||||

loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester | ||||

SHOULD collect a timestamp of the Convergence Event Instant and the | ||||

Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the Next- | ||||

Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence | ||||

Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 4 is applied | ||||

for each measured route. | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence Time = | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route | ||||

- (Convergence Event Instant - start traffic instant) | ||||

Equation 4 | ||||

The Convergence Event Instant and start traffic instant SHOULD be | ||||

collected by the Tester. | ||||

The Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum, | ||||

maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be | ||||

reported by comparing the results for the different route entries. | ||||

It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when configuring a | ||||

priority value for route entry(ies). Since multiple Route-Specific | ||||

Convergence Times can be measured it is possible to have an array of | ||||

results. The format for reporting Route-Specific Convergence Time is | ||||

provided in [Po09m]. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Preferred Egress Interface | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.4 Benchmarking Methods | ||||

3.4.1 Packet Loss | Convergence Event, Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, | |||

Route Convergence | ||||

3.6.4. Loss-Derived Convergence Time | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The number of packets that should have been forwarded | ||||

by a DUT under a constant offered load that were | The average Route Convergence time for all routes in FIB, as | |||

not forwarded due to lack of resources. | calculated from the amount of packet loss during convergence. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate" | ||||

as defined in [Ba91]. The term "Frame Loss" is intended for | ||||

Ethernet Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets. | ||||

Packet Loss can be measured as a reduction in forwarded traffic | ||||

from the Throughput [Ba91] of the DUT. | ||||

Measurement units: | Loss-Derived Convergence Time is measured using the Loss-Derived | |||

Number of offered packets that are not forwarded. | Method. | |||

If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss | ||||

for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity Packet | ||||

Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the combined | ||||

packet loss observed on Preferred Egress Interface and Next-Best | ||||

Egress Interface. When benchmarking Loss-Derived Convergence Time, | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss is measured and Equation 5 is applied. | ||||

Loss-Derived Convergence Time = | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss/Offered Load | ||||

Equation 5 | ||||

If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous traffic | ||||

loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then the Tester | ||||

SHOULD collect a timestamp of the Convergence Event Instant and the | ||||

Tester SHOULD observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the Next- | ||||

Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Loss-Derived Convergence | ||||

Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation 6 is applied. | ||||

Loss-Derived Convergence Time = | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss/Offered Load | ||||

- (Convergence Event Instant - start traffic instant) | ||||

Equation 6 | ||||

The Convergence Event Instant and start traffic instant SHOULD be | ||||

collected by the Tester. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

3.4.2 Convergence Packet Loss | Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route Convergence | |||

3.6.5. Route Loss of Connectivity Period | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event | ||||

until Full Convergence completes. | The time duration of traffic loss for a specific route entry | |||

following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as | ||||

observed using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and | ||||

packets that were delayed due to buffering. The Convergence | ||||

Packet Loss observed in a Packet Sampling Interval may or may | ||||

not be equal to the number of packets in the offered load | ||||

during the interval following a Convergence Event (see Figure | ||||

1). | ||||

Measurement Units: | In general the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to the | |||

number of packets | Route-Specific Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to forward | |||

traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the Convergence Event | ||||

is applied then the Route Loss of Connectivity Period will be smaller | ||||

than the Route-Specific Convergence Time. This is also specifically | ||||

the case after reversing a failure event. | ||||

The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Route- | ||||

Specific Convergence Time, as a characteristic of the Convergence | ||||

Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the | ||||

Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in [Po09m]. | ||||

For the testcases described in [Po09m] the Route Loss of Connectivity | ||||

Period is expected to be a single Loss Period [Ko02]. | ||||

When benchmarking Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Connectivity | ||||

Packet Loss is measured for each route and Equation 7 is applied for | ||||

each measured route entry. The calculation is equal to Equation 3 in | ||||

Section 3.6.3. | ||||

Route Loss of Connectivity Period = | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route/Offered Load per route | ||||

Equation 7 | ||||

Route Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using Route- | ||||

Specific Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Packet Loss | ||||

Route Convergence | ||||

Convergence Event | ||||

Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

3.4.3 Rate-Derived Convergence Method | Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method, | |||

Definition: | Connectivity Packet Loss | |||

The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from the | ||||

amount of time that Convergence Packet Loss persists upon | ||||

occurrence of a Convergence Event. | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method can be calculated as the time | 3.6.6. Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period | |||

difference from the Convergence Event Instant to the | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown with Equation 1. | ||||

(Equation 1) | Definition: | |||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method = | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant - Convergence Event Instant. | The average time duration of traffic loss for all routes following a | |||

Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion, as observed | ||||

using the Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

It is RECOMMENDED that the Rate-Derived Convergence Method be | ||||

measured when benchmarking convergence times. The Rate-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method SHOULD be measured with an Offered Load at | ||||

the Throughput of the DUT. At least one packet per route | ||||

in the FIB for all routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT | ||||

within the Packet Sampling Interval. | ||||

It is possible to measure no packet loss, which results in a | In general the Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal | |||

Rate-Derived Convergence Time benchmark of zero. Failure to | to the Loss-Derived Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to | |||

achieve Full Convergence results in a Rate-Derived Convergence | forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the | |||

Time benchmark of infinity. | Convergence Event is applied then the Loss-Derived Loss of | |||

Connectivity Period will be smaller than the Loss-Derived Convergence | ||||

Time. This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure | ||||

event. | ||||

Measurement Units: | The Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the | |||

seconds | Loss-Derived Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the | |||

Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping | ||||

instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion in | ||||

[Po09m]. | ||||

For the testcases described in [Po09m] each route's Route Loss of | ||||

Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period [Ko02]. | ||||

When benchmarking Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period, | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for all routes and Equation 8 is | ||||

applied. The calculation is equal to Equation 5 in Section 3.6.4. | ||||

Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period = | ||||

Connectivity Packet Loss for all routes/Offered Load | ||||

Equation 8 | ||||

Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using | ||||

Loss-Derived Method. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

Convergence Event Instant | ||||

Full Convergence | ||||

3.4.4 Loss-Derived Convergence Method | Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Method, Connectivity | |||

Packet Loss | ||||

3.7. Measurement Terms | ||||

3.7.1. Convergence Event | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from the | ||||

amount of Convergence Packet Loss. Loss-Derived Convergence | ||||

Method can be calculated from Convergence Packet Loss as shown | ||||

with Equation 2. | ||||

Equation 2 - | The occurrence of a planned or unplanned event in the network that | |||

Loss-Derived Convergence Method = | will result in a change in the egress interface of the Device Under | |||

Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load | Test (DUT) for routed packets. | |||

where units are packets / packets/second = seconds | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Ideally, the Convergence Event Transition and Convergence | ||||

Recovery Transition are instantaneous so that the Rate-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method = Loss-Derived Convergence Method. However, | ||||

router implementations are less than ideal. Loss-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method gives a better than actual result when | ||||

converging many routes simultaneously because it ignores the | ||||

transitions. The Rate-Derived Convergence Method takes the | ||||

transitions into account. | ||||

Equation 2 calculates the average convergence time over all | Convergence Events include but are not limited to link loss, routing | |||

routes to which packets have been sent. The average convergence | protocol session loss, router failure, configuration change, and | |||

time is often lower than the maximum convergence time | better next-hop learned via a routing protocol. | |||

over all routes, so it can produce a result that is faster than | ||||

the actual convergence time.. Therefore, Loss-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method is not the preferred method to measure | ||||

convergence benchmarks. For these reasons the RECOMMENDED | ||||

method to obtain a benchmark metric for convergence time is the | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Measurement Units: N/A | |||

seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: Convergence Event Instant | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method | 3.7.2. Packet Loss | |||

Route-Specific Convergence | ||||

Convergence Event Transition | ||||

Convergence Recovery Transition | ||||

3.4.5 Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The interval at which the tester (test equipment) polls to make | ||||

measurements for arriving packet flows. | The number of packets that should have been forwarded by a DUT under | |||

a constant Offered Load that were not forwarded due to lack of | ||||

resources. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

At least one packet per route in the FIB for all routes in the | ||||

FIB MUST be offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval. Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval | ||||

MUST include Forwarding Rate and Convergence Packet Loss. | ||||

Packet Sampling Interval can influence the Convergence Graph. | Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate" as | |||

This is particularly true when implementations complete Full | defined in [Br91]. The term "Frame Loss" is intended for Ethernet | |||

Convergence in less time than the Packet Sampling Interval. The | Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets. | |||

Convergence Event Transition and Convergence Recovery Transition | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

can become exaggerated when the Packet Sampling Interval is too | Measurement units: | |||

long. In this condition, the Rate-Derived Convergence Method | ||||

may produce a larger than actual convergence time. In such | ||||

cases the Loss-Derived Convergence Method may produce a more | ||||

accurate result. The recommended value for configuration of | ||||

the Packet Sampling Interval is provided in [Po07m]. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | Number of offered packets that are not forwarded. | |||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: Convergence Packet Loss | |||

Convergence Packet Loss | ||||

Convergence Event Transition | ||||

Convergence Recovery Transition | ||||

3.5 Benchmarks | ||||

3.5.1 Full Convergence Time | 3.7.3. Convergence Packet Loss | |||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The amount of time it takes for Full Convergence to occur. | ||||

The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full | ||||

Convergence completes, as observed on the Next-Best Egress Interface. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Full Convergence Time can be determined using the Rate-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method or Loss-Derived Convergence Method. The | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method is RECOMMENDED. When | ||||

measuring Route-Specific Convergence Time, there may be | ||||

conditions in which the maximum Route Specific Convergence Time | ||||

can be reported as the Full Convergence Time. Full Convergence | ||||

may or may not be sustained over time. The Sustained | ||||

Convergence Validation Time MUST be applied. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Convergence Packet Loss is observed on the Next-Best Egress | |||

seconds | Interface. It only needs to be observed for Convergence Events that | |||

do not cause instantaneous traffic loss at Convergence Event Instant. | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets | ||||

that were delayed due to buffering. The magnitude of an acceptable | ||||

Forwarding Delay is a parameter of the methodology. If a maximum | ||||

acceptable Forwarding Delay threshold is applied it MUST be reported. | ||||

Measurement Units: number of packets | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Full Convergence | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method | ||||

Loss-Derived Convergence Method | ||||

3.5.2 First Route Convergence Time | Packet Loss, Full Convergence, Convergence Event, Connectivity Packet | |||

Loss | ||||

3.7.4. Connectivity Packet Loss | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss until the | ||||

convergence of a first route entry on the Next-Best Egress | ||||

Interface, as indicated by the First Route Convergence | ||||

Instant. | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event until Full | |||

Convergence completes. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The First Route Convergence Time benchmarking metric can be | ||||

measured when benchmarking either Full Convergence or | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence. When benchmarking Full Convergence, | ||||

First Route Convergence Time can be measured as the time | ||||

difference from the Convergence Event Instant and the First | ||||

Route Convergence Instant, as shown with Equation 4a. | ||||

(Equation 4a) | Connectivity Packet Loss is observed on all DUT egress interfaces. | |||

First Route Convergence Time = | ||||

First Route Convergence Instant - Convergence Event Instant | ||||

First Route Convergence Time should be measured at the maximum | Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and packets | |||

Throughput of the DUT. At least one packet per route in the FIB | that were delayed due to buffering. The magnitude of an acceptable | |||

for all routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT within the | Forwarding Delay is a parameter of the methodology. If a maximum | |||

Packet Sampling Interval. Failure to achieve the First Route | acceptable Forwarding Delay threshold is applied it MUST be reported. | |||

Convergence Instant results in a First Route Convergence Time | ||||

benchmark of infinity. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Measurement Units: number of packets | |||

seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Packet Loss, Route Loss of Connectivity Period, Convergence Event, | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss | Convergence Packet Loss | |||

First Route Convergence Instant | ||||

3.5.3 Route-Specific Convergence Time | 3.7.5. Packet Sampling Interval | |||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The amount of time it takes for Route-Specific Convergence to | ||||

be completed as calculated from the amount of Convergence | ||||

Packet Loss for the flow associated to a specific route. | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence Time can be calculated from | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss as shown with Equation 3. | ||||

(Equation 3) Route-Specific Convergence Time = | The interval at which the Tester (test equipment) polls to make | |||

Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load | measurements for arriving packets. | |||

where units are packets / packets/second = seconds | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

It is possible to provide an offered load that has flows | ||||

matching every route entry in the FIB and benchmarking | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence Time for all route entries. The | ||||

number of flows that can be measured is dependent upon the flow | ||||

measurement capabilities of the Tester. When benchmarking | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence, Convergence Packet Loss is measured | ||||

for specific flow(s) and Equation 3 is applied for each flow. | ||||

Each flow has a single destination address matching a different | ||||

route entry. The fastest measurable convergence time is equal | ||||

to the time between two consecutive packets of a flow offered | ||||

by the Tester. In practice, the fastest measurable | ||||

convergence time is the Packet Sampling Interval of the Tester. | ||||

The Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum, | At least one packet per route in the FIB for all routes MUST be | |||

maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be | offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling Interval. Metrics | |||

reported by comparing the results for the different route | measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include Forwarding Rate | |||

entries. It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when | and received packets. | |||

configuring a priority value for route entry(ies). Since | ||||

multiple Route-Specific Convergence Times can be measured it is | ||||

possible to have an array of results. The format for reporting | ||||

Route-Specific Convergence Time is provided in [Po07m]. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Packet Sampling Interval can influence the Convergence Graph as | |||

seconds | observed with the Rate-Derived Method. This is particularly true | |||

when implementations complete Full Convergence in less time than the | ||||

Packet Sampling Interval. The Convergence Event Instant and First | ||||

Route Convergence Instant may not be easily identifiable and the | ||||

Rate-Derived Method may produce a larger than actual convergence | ||||

time. | ||||

Issues: | The recommended value for configuration of the Packet Sampling | |||

None | Interval when using the Rate-Derived Method is provided in [Po09m]. | |||

For the other benchmark methods the value of the Packet Sampling | ||||

Interval does not contribute to the measurement accuracy. | ||||

See Also: | Measurement Units: seconds | |||

Convergence Event | ||||

Convergence Packet Loss | Issues: None | |||

Route-Specific Convergence | ||||

See Also: Rate-Derived Method | ||||

3.7.6. Sustained Convergence Validation Time | ||||

3.5.4 Sustained Convergence Validation Time | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The amount of time for which the completion of Full | ||||

Convergence is maintained without additional packet loss. | The amount of time for which the completion of Full Convergence is | |||

maintained without additional packet loss. | ||||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to | ||||

produce Convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation | ||||

in Throughput after the completion of Full Convergence is | ||||

observed. The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation | ||||

Time to be used is 5 seconds. The BMWG selected 5 seconds | ||||

based upon RFC 2544 [Ba99] which recommends waiting 2 seconds | ||||

for residual frames to arrive and 5 seconds for DUT | ||||

restabilization. | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to | |||

produce convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation in | ||||

Forwarding Rate after the completion of Full Convergence is observed. | ||||

The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation Time to be used is 5 | ||||

seconds. The BMWG selected 5 seconds based upon RFC 2544 [Br99] | ||||

which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to arrive and | ||||

5 seconds for DUT restabilization. | ||||

Measurement Units: | Measurement Units: seconds | |||

seconds | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: | |||

Full Convergence | ||||

Convergence Recovery Instant | ||||

3.5.5 Reversion Convergence Time | Full Convergence, Convergence Recovery Instant | |||

3.8. Miscellaneous Terms | ||||

3.8.1. Stale Forwarding | ||||

Definition: | Definition: | |||

The amount of time for the DUT to complete Full Convergence | ||||

to the Preferred Egress Interface, instead of the Next-Best | Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist or to | |||

Egress Interface, upon recovery from a Convergence Event. | route entries with next-hops that are no longer preferred. | |||

Discussion: | Discussion: | |||

Reversion Convergence Time is the amount of time for Full | ||||

Convergence to the original egress interface. This is | ||||

achieved by recovering from the Convergence Event, such as | ||||

restoring the failed link. Reversion Convergence Time | ||||

can be measured using the Rate-Derived Convergence Method | ||||

or Loss-Derived Convergence Method. The Rate-Derived | ||||

Convergence Method is RECOMMENDED. It is possible to have | ||||

the Reversion Convergence Time differ from the Full | ||||

Convergence Time. | ||||

Measurement Units: seconds | Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and can | |||

manifest as a "black-hole" or microloop that produces packet loss, or | ||||

out-of-order packets, or delayed packets. Stale Forwarding can exist | ||||

until Network Convergence is completed. | ||||

Measurement Units: N/A | ||||

Issues: None | Issues: None | |||

See Also: | See Also: Network Convergence | |||

Preferred Egress Interface | ||||

Convergence Event | ||||

Rate-Derived Convergence Method | ||||

4. IANA Considerations | 3.8.2. Nested Convergence Event | |||

This document requires no IANA considerations. | Definition: | |||

5. Security Considerations | 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 Event MUST occur with | ||||

different neighbors. A possible 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 | ||||

See Also: Convergence Event | ||||

4. 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 is not | Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not | |||

performed on devices or systems connected to production networks. | performed on devices or systems connected to production networks. | |||

Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media | Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media layer | |||

layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and various | is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and various other | |||

other drafts. This document attempts to formalize a set of | drafts. This document attempts to formalize a set of common | |||

common terminology for benchmarking IGP convergence performance | methodology for benchmarking IGP convergence performance in a lab | |||

in a lab environment. | environment. | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | 5. IANA Considerations | |||

This document requires no IANA considerations. | ||||

6. Acknowledgements | 6. Acknowledgements | |||

Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward, | Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward, | |||

Kris Michielsen and the BMWG for their contributions to this work. | Peter De Vriendt and the BMWG for their contributions to this work. | |||

7. References | 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 | 7.1. Normative References | |||

Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", | ||||

RFC 2544, March 1999. | [Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network | |||

interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. | ||||

[Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||

[Ca90] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||

Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. | ||||

[Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN | [Br99] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for | |||

Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. | Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999. | |||

[Mo98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998. | [Ca90] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual | |||

environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. | ||||

[Mo06] Morton, A., et al, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, | [Co08] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for | |||

November 2006. | IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. | |||

[Po06] Poretsky, S., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking | [Ho08] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, | |||

Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, | October 2008. | |||

[Ko02] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample | ||||

Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002. | ||||

[Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching | ||||

Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. | ||||

[Mo06] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., | ||||

and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, | ||||

November 2006. | November 2006. | |||

[Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for Link-State | [Mo98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. | |||

[Po06] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, | ||||

"Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control | ||||

Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006. | ||||

[Po09a] Poretsky, S., "Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State | ||||

IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", | IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", | |||

draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17, work in progress, | draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17 (work in | |||

March 2009. | progress), March 2009. | |||

[Po07m] Poretsky, S. and Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Methodology for | [Po09m] Poretsky, S. and B. Imhoff, "Benchmarking Methodology for | |||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", | Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", | |||

draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-17, work in progress, | draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-18 (work in | |||

March 2009. | progress), July 2009. | |||

7.2 Informative References | 7.2. Informative References | |||

[Ca01] S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained View | ||||

of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001. | ||||

[Ci03] L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized | [Ca01] Casner, S., Alaettinoglu, C., and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained | |||

Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE | View of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001. | |||

Communications Magazine, pp90-97, May 2003. | ||||

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence | [Ci03] Ciavattone, L., Morton, A., and G. Ramachandran, | |||

"Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", | ||||

IEEE Communications Magazine p90-97, May 2003. | ||||

8. Author's Address | Authors' Addresses | |||

Scott Poretsky | Scott Poretsky | |||

Allot Communications | Allot Communications | |||

67 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 | 67 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 | |||

Burlington, MA 01803 | Burlington, MA 01803 | |||

USA | USA | |||

Phone: + 1 508 309 2179 | Phone: + 1 508 309 2179 | |||

Email: sporetsky@allot.com | Email: sporetsky@allot.com | |||

Brent Imhoff | Brent Imhoff | |||

Juniper Networks | Juniper Networks | |||

1194 North Mathilda Ave | 1194 North Mathilda Ave | |||

Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |||

USA | USA | |||

Phone: + 1 314 378 2571 | Phone: + 1 314 378 2571 | |||

EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com | Email: bimhoff@planetspork.com | |||

Kris Michielsen | ||||

Cisco Systems | ||||

6A De Kleetlaan | ||||

Diegem, BRABANT 1831 | ||||

Belgium | ||||

Email: kmichiel@cisco.com | ||||

End of changes. 207 change blocks. | ||||

628 lines changed or deleted | | 832 lines changed or added | ||

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |