draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-06.txt 
Network Working Group S. Poretsky Network Working Group S. Poretsky
Internet Draft Allot Communications Internet Draft Allot Communications
Expires: September 8, 2009
Intended Status: Informational Rajiv Papneja Intended Status: Informational Rajiv Papneja
Isocore Isocore
J. Karthik J. Karthik
Cisco Systems
S. Vapiwala S. Vapiwala
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
November 3, 2008 March 8, 2009
Benchmarking Terminology
for Protection Performance
<draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt >
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement: Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any <draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-06.txt >
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
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.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This document provides common terminology and metrics for benchmarking This document provides common terminology and metrics for benchmarking
the performance of sub-IP layer protection mechanisms. The performance the performance of sub-IP layer protection mechanisms. The performance
benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer, avoiding dependence on benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer, avoiding dependence on
specific sub-IP protection mechanisms. The benchmarks and terminology specific sub-IP protection mechanisms. The benchmarks and terminology
can be applied in methodology documents for different sub-IP layer can be applied in methodology documents for different sub-IP layer
protection mechanisms such as Automatic Protection Switching (APS), protection mechanisms such as Automatic Protection Switching (APS),
Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), Stateful High Availability Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP), Stateful High Availability
(HA), and Multi-Protocol Label Switching Fast Reroute (MPLS-FRR). (HA), and Multi-Protocol Label Switching Fast Reroute (MPLS-FRR).
skipping to change at page 3, line 40 skipping to change at page 3, line 40
to provide a single terminology for benchmarking sub-IP protection to provide a single terminology for benchmarking sub-IP protection
mechanisms. mechanisms.
A common terminology for Sub-IP layer protection mechanism A common terminology for Sub-IP layer protection mechanism
benchmarking enables different implementations of a protection benchmarking enables different implementations of a protection
mechanism to be benchmarked and evaluated. In addition, mechanism to be benchmarked and evaluated. In addition,
implementations of different protection mechanisms can be implementations of different protection mechanisms can be
benchmarked and evaluated. It is intended that there can exist benchmarked and evaluated. It is intended that there can exist
unique methodology documents for each sub-IP protection mechanism unique methodology documents for each sub-IP protection mechanism
based upon this common terminology document. The terminology based upon this common terminology document. The terminology
can be aplied to methodologies that benchmark sub-IP protection can be applied to methodologies that benchmark sub-IP protection
mechanism performance with a single stream of traffic or mechanism performance with a single stream of traffic or
multiple streams of traffic. The traffic flow may be multiple streams of traffic. The traffic flow may be
uni-directional or bi-directional as to be indicated in the uni-directional or bi-directional as to be indicated in the
methodology. methodology.
1.2 General Model 1.2 General Model
The sequence of events to benchmark the performance of Sub-IP The sequence of events to benchmark the performance of Sub-IP
Protection Mechanisms is as follows: Protection Mechanisms is as follows:
1. Failover Event - Primary Path fails 1. Failover Event - Primary Path fails
skipping to change at page 26, line 39 skipping to change at page 26, line 39
4. Acknowledgements 4. Acknowledgements
We would like thank the BMWG and particularly Al Morton and Curtis We would like thank the BMWG and particularly Al Morton and Curtis
Villamizar for their reviews, comments, and contributions to this Villamizar for their reviews, comments, and contributions to this
work. work.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations. This document requires no IANA considerations.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document only addresses terminology for the performance
benchmarking of protection systems, and the information contained Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
in this document has no effect on the security of the Internet. Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media
layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and various
other drafts. This document attempts to formalize a set of
common methodology for benchmarking performance of failover
mechanisms in a lab environment.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
RFC 2026, October 1996. RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for [2] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for
Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[3] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN [3] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
Protection Performance
[4] Poretsky, S., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking [4] Poretsky, S., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking
Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689,
November 2006. November 2006.
Protection Performance
[5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, July 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, July 1997.
[6] Paxson, V., et al., "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", [6] Not used.
RFC 2330, May 1998.
[7] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP [7] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP
Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16, Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16,
work in progress, November 2008. work in progress, March 2009.
[8] Pan., P. et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP [8] Pan., P. et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Paths", RFC 4090, May 2005. Paths", RFC 4090, May 2005.
[9] Nichols, K., et al, "Definition of the Differentiated [9] Nichols, K., et al, "Definition of the Differentiated
Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers",
RFC 2474, December 1998. RFC 2474, December 1998.
[10] Morton, A., et al, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, [10] Morton, A., et al, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006. November 2006.
skipping to change at page 27, line 50 skipping to change at page 28, line 4
Phone: + 1 508 309 2179 Phone: + 1 508 309 2179
Email: sporetsky@allot.com Email: sporetsky@allot.com
Rajiv Papneja Rajiv Papneja
Isocore Isocore
12359 Sunrise Valley Drive 12359 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 22102 Reston, VA 22102
USA USA
Phone: 1 703 860 9273 Phone: 1 703 860 9273
Email: rpapneja@isocore.com Email: rpapneja@isocore.com
Protection Performance
Jay Karthik Jay Karthik
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
300 Beaver Brook Road 300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Phone: +1 978 936 0533 Phone: +1 978 936 0533
Email: jkarthik@cisco.com Email: jkarthik@cisco.com
Protection Performance
Samir Vapiwala Samir Vapiwala
Cisco System Cisco System
300 Beaver Brook Road 300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1484 Phone: +1 978 936 1484
Email: svapiwal@cisco.com Email: svapiwal@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 33 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/