draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-00.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-01.txt 
Network Working Group W. Cerveny Network Working Group W. Cerveny
Internet-Draft Arbor Networks Internet-Draft Arbor Networks
Intended status: Informational R. Bonica Intended status: Informational R. Bonica
Expires: January 6, 2016 Juniper Networks Expires: July 8, 2016 Juniper Networks
July 5, 2015 January 5, 2016
Benchmarking IPv6 Neighbor Cache Behavior Benchmarking IPv6 Neighbor Cache Behavior
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-00 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-01
Abstract Abstract
This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583: This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583:
"Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems" [RFC6583]. It describes a "Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems" [RFC6583]. It describes a
general testing procedure and measurements that can be performed to general testing procedure and measurements that can be performed to
evaluate how the problems described in RFC 6583 may impact the evaluate how the problems described in RFC 6583 may impact the
functionality or performance of intermediate nodes. functionality or performance of intermediate nodes.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
3. Overview of Relevant NDP and Intermediate Node Behavior . . . 3 3. Overview of Relevant NDP and Intermediate Node Behavior . . . 3
4. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Testing Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Testing Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Modifiers (Variables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Modifiers (Variables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Frequency of NDP Triggering Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Frequency of NDP Triggering Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Stale Entry Time Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Stale Entry Time Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1.1. General Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1.1. General Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Neighbor Cache Exhaustion Determination . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Neighbor Cache Exhaustion Determination . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2.1. General Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2.1. General Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3. Dropped Flows Per Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3.1. General Testing Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Measurements Explicitly Excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Measurements Explicitly Excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. DUT CPU Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. DUT CPU Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Malformed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Malformed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583: This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583:
"Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems" [RFC6583]. It describes a "Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems" [RFC6583]. It describes a
skipping to change at page 8, line 15 skipping to change at page 8, line 15
previously added addresses must be re-discovered with a neighbor previously added addresses must be re-discovered with a neighbor
solicitation (within the stale entry time period). solicitation (within the stale entry time period).
2. Observe what happens when one address greater than the maximum 2. Observe what happens when one address greater than the maximum
neighbor cache size ("n") is reached. When "n+1" is reached, if neighbor cache size ("n") is reached. When "n+1" is reached, if
either the first or most recent cache entry are dropped, this may either the first or most recent cache entry are dropped, this may
be acceptable. be acceptable.
3. Confirm intermediate node doesn't crash when "n+1" is reached. 3. Confirm intermediate node doesn't crash when "n+1" is reached.
6.3. Dropped Flows Per Second
This test determines the rate that which flows are dropped once the
neighbor cache size is exceeded. The metric for this test is the
number of flows which are dropped in a minute.
6.3.1. General Testing Procedure
1. Send packets incrementally to unique valid addresses in the
target network, within stale entry time period. The number of
unique valid addresses may be as high as the size of the neighbor
cache, but may be the number of nodes that would be expected in a
deployed network. Continue sending packets to previously cached
addresses.
2. Send packets incrementally to unique invalid addresses (addresses
without valid node in target network), until the intermediate
node crashes, packets are no longer accepted or existing flows to
unique valid addresses are dropped.
7. Measurements Explicitly Excluded 7. Measurements Explicitly Excluded
These are measurements which aren't recommended because of the These are measurements which aren't recommended because of the
itemized reasons below: itemized reasons below:
7.1. DUT CPU Utilization 7.1. DUT CPU Utilization
This measurement relies on the DUT to provide utilization This measurement relies on the DUT to provide utilization
information, which is subjective. information, which is subjective.
skipping to change at page 9, line 44 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
Helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Al Morton, Joel Helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Al Morton, Joel
Jaeggli, Nalini Elkins, Scott Bradner, Ram Krishnan, and Marius Jaeggli, Nalini Elkins, Scott Bradner, Ram Krishnan, and Marius
Georgescu on the BMWG e-mail list and at BMWG meetings. Precise Georgescu on the BMWG e-mail list and at BMWG meetings. Precise
grammatical corrections and suggestions were offered by Ann Cerveny. grammatical corrections and suggestions were offered by Ann Cerveny.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or [RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982. RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc826>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999. Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007. DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008. Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational [RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, March 2012. Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability [RFC7048] Nordmark, E. and I. Gashinsky, "Neighbor Unreachability
Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048, January 2014. Detection Is Too Impatient", RFC 7048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7048, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7048>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bill Cerveny Bill Cerveny
Arbor Networks Arbor Networks
2727 South State Street 2727 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA USA
Email: wcerveny@arbor.net Email: wcerveny@arbor.net
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 27 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/