Benchmarking Methodology Working                             S. Poretsky                               C. Davids
Group                                               Allot Communications                                   Illinois Institute of Technology
Internet-Draft                                                V. Gurbani
Expires: January 13, September 15, 2011            Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
                                                               C. Davids
                                        Illinois Institute of Technology
                                                           July 12, 2010
                                                             S. Poretsky
                                                    Allot Communications
                                                          March 14, 2011

     Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                           Networking Devices
                   draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-02
                   draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-03

Abstract

   This document provides a terminology for benchmarking SIP performance
   in networking devices.  Terms are included for test components, test
   setup parameters, and performance benchmark metrics for black-box
   benchmarking of SIP networking devices.  The performance benchmark
   metrics are obtained for the SIP control plane and media plane.  The
   terms are intended for use in a companion methodology document for
   complete performance characterization of a device in a variety of
   conditions making it possible to compare performance of different
   devices.  It is critical to provide test setup parameters and a
   methodology document for SIP performance benchmarking because SIP
   allows a wide range of configuration and operational conditions that
   can influence performance benchmark measurements.  It is necessary to
   have terminology and methodology standards to ensure that reported
   benchmarks have consistent definition and were obtained following the
   same procedures.  Benchmarks can be applied to compare performance of
   a variety of SIP networking devices.

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
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts.
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, September 15, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 2011 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  5
     2.1.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7  6
     2.2.  Benchmarking Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  7
   3.  Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
     3.1.  Protocol Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
       3.1.1.  Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13
       3.1.2.  Signaling Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15
       3.1.3.  Media Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16
       3.1.4.  Associated Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16
       3.1.5.  Overload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 17
       3.1.6.  Session Attempt  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
       3.1.7.  Established Session  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
       3.1.8.  Invite-initiated Session (IS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19
       3.1.9.  Non-INVITE-initiated Session (NS)  . . . . . . . . . . 18 19
       3.1.10. Session Attempt Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20
       3.1.11. Standing Sessions Count  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20
     3.2.  Test Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
       3.2.1.  Emulated Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
       3.2.2.  Signaling Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
       3.2.3.  SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
       3.2.4.  SIP Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
     3.3.  Test Setup Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23
       3.3.1.  Session Attempt Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23
       3.3.2.  IS Media Attempt Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23
       3.3.3.  Establishment Threshold Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 24
       3.3.4.  Session Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25
       3.3.5.  Media Packet Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25
       3.3.6.  Media Offered Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26
       3.3.7.  Media Session Hold Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26
       3.3.8.  Loop Detection Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 27
       3.3.9.  Forking Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 27
     3.4.  Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 28
       3.4.1.  Registration Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 28
       3.4.2.  Session Establishment Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29
       3.4.3.  Session Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30
       3.4.4.  Session Overload Capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31
       3.4.5.  Session Establishment Performance  . . . . . . . . . . 30 31
       3.4.6.  Session Attempt Delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32
       3.4.7.  IM Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 33
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 33
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34
     7.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34
   Appendix A.  White Box Benchmarking Terminology  . . . . . . . . . 34 35
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 35

1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC2119
   [RFC2119].  RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make
   the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible.  While
   this document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards
   track document.  The term Throughput is defined in RFC2544 [RFC2544].

   For the sake of clarity and continuity, this document adopts the
   template for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242 [RFC1242].
   Definitions are indexed and grouped together for ease of reference.

   This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG work.
   Examples include, but are not limited to:

      Device under test (DUT) (c.f., Section 3.1.1 RFC 2285 [RFC2285]).
      System under test (SUT) (c.f., Section 3.1.2, RFC 2285 [RFC2285]).

   Many commonly used SIP terms in this document are defined in RFC 3261
   [RFC3261].  For convenience the most important of these are
   reproduced below.  Use of these terms in this document is consistent
   with their corresponding definition in [RFC3261].
   o  Call Stateful: A proxy is call stateful if it retains state for a
      dialog from the initiating INVITE to the terminating BYE request.
      A call stateful proxy is always transaction stateful, but the
      converse is not necessarily true.
   o  Stateful Proxy: A logical entity that maintains the client and
      server transaction state machines defined by this specification
      during the processing of a request, also known as a transaction
      stateful proxy.  The behavior of a stateful proxy is further
      defined in Section 16.  A (transaction) stateful proxy is not the
      same as a call stateful proxy.
   o  Stateless Proxy: A logical entity that does not maintain the
      client or server transaction state machines defined in this
      specification when it processes requests.  A stateless proxy
      forwards every request it receives downstream and every response
      it receives upstream.
   o  Back-to-back User Agent: A back-to-back user agent (B2BUA) is a
      logical entity that receives a request and processes it as a user
      agent server (UAS).  In order to determine how the request should
      be answered, it acts as a user agent client (UAC) and generates
      requests.  Unlike a proxy server, it maintains dialog state and
      must participate in all requests sent on the dialogs it has
      established.  Since it is a concatenation of a UAC and a UAS, no
      explicit definitions are needed for its behavior.

   o  Loop: A request that arrives at a proxy, is forwarded, and later
      arrives back at the same proxy.  When it arrives the second time,
      its Request-URI is identical to the first time, and other header
      fields that affect proxy operation are unchanged, so that the
      proxy will make the same processing decision on the request it
      made the first time.  Looped requests are errors, and the
      procedures for detecting them and handling them are described by
      the protocol.

2.  Introduction

   Service Providers are now planning Voice Over IP (VoIP) and
   Multimedia network deployments using the IETF developed Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261].  SIP is a signaling protocol
   originally intended to be used for the dynamic establishment,
   disconnection and modification of streams of media between end users.
   As it has evolved it has been adopted for use in a growing number of
   applications and features.  Many of these result in the creation of a
   media stream, but some do not.  Instead, they create other services
   tailored to the end-users' immediate needs or preferences.  The set
   of benchmarking terms provided in this document is intended for use
   with any SIP-enabled device performing SIP functions in the interior
   of the network.  The performance of end-user devices is outside the
   scope of this document.

   VoIP with SIP has led to the development of new networking devices
   including SIP Server, Session Border Controllers (SBC), Back-to-back
   user agents (B2BUA) and SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall.  The mix of
   voice and IP functions in these various devices has produced
   inconsistencies in vendor reported performance metrics and has caused
   confusion in the service provider community.  SIP allows a wide range
   of configuration and operational conditions that can influence
   performance benchmark measurements.  When the device under test
   terminates or relays both media and signaling, for example, it is
   important to be able to correlate a signaling measurement with the
   media plane measurements to determine the system performance.  As
   devices and their functions proliferate, the need to have a
   consistent set of metrics to compare their performance becomes
   increasingly urgent.  This document and its companion methodology
   document [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth] provide a set of black-box
   benchmarks for describing and comparing the performance of devices
   that incorporate the SIP User Agent Client and Server functions and
   that operate in the network's core.

   The definition of SIP performance benchmarks necessarily includes
   definitions of Test Setup Parameters and a test methodology.  These
   enable the Tester to perform benchmarking tests on different devices
   and to achieve comparable and repeatable results.  This document
   provides a common set of well-defined terms for Test Components, Test
   Setup Parameters, and Benchmarks.  All the benchmarks defined are
   black-box measurements of the SIP Control (Signaling) plane.  The
   Test Setup Parameters and Benchmarks defined in this document are
   intended for use with the companion Methodology document.  Benchmarks
   of internal DUT characteristics (also known as white-box benchmarks)
   such as Session Attempt Arrival Rate, which is measured at the DUT,
   are described in Appendix A to allow additional characterization of
   DUT behavior with different distribution models.

2.1.  Scope

   The scope of this work item is summarized as follows:
   o  This terminology document describes SIP signaling (control- plane)
      performance benchmarks for black-box measurements of SIP
      networking devices.  Stress and debug scenarios are not addressed
      in this work item.
   o  The DUT must be an RFC 3261 capable network equipment.  This may
      be a Registrar, Redirect Server, Stateless Proxy or Stateful
      Proxy.  A DUT MAY also include a B2BUA, SBC functionality (this is
      referred to as the "Signaling Server".)  The DUT MAY be a multi-
      port SIP-to-switched network gateway implemented as a SIP UAC or
      UAS.
   o  The DUT MAY have an internal SIP Application Level Gateway (ALG),
      firewall, and/or a Network Address Translator (NAT).  This is
      referred to as the "SIP Aware Stateful Firewall."
   o  The DUT or SUT MUST NOT be end user equipment, such as personal
      digital assistant, a computer-based client, or a user terminal.
   o  The Tester acts as multiple "Emulated Agents" that initiate (or
      respond to) SIP messages as session endpoints and source (or
      receive) associated media for established connections.
   o  Control Signaling in presence of Media
      *  The media performance is not benchmarked in this work item.
      *  It is RECOMMENDED that control plane benchmarks are performed
         with media present, but this is optional.
      *  The SIP INVITE requests MUST include the SDP body.
      *  The type of DUT dictates whether the associated media streams
         traverse the DUT or SUT.  Both scenarios are within the scope
         of this work item.
      *  SIP is frequently used to create media streams; the control
         plane and media plane are treated as orthogonal to each other
         in this document.  While many devices support the creation of
         media streams, benchmarks that measure the performance of these
         streams are outside the scope of this document and its
         companion methodology document [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth].
         Tests may be performed with or without the creation of media
         streams.  The presence or absence of media streams MUST be
         noted as a condition of the test as the performance of SIP
         devices may vary accordingly.  Even if the media is used during
         benchmarking, only the SIP performance will be benchmarked, not
         the media performance or quality.
   o  Both INVITE and non-INVITE scenarios (such as Instant Messages or
      IM) are addressed in this document.  However, benchmarking SIP
      presence is not a part of this work item.
   o  Different transport mechanisms -- such as UDP, TCP, SCTP, or TLS
      -- may be used; however, the specific transport mechanism MUST be
      noted as a condition of the test as the performance of SIP devices
      may vary accordingly.
   o  Looping and forking options are also considered since they impact
      processing at SIP proxies.
   o  REGISTER and INVITE requests may be challenged or remain
      unchallenged for authentication purpose as this may impact the
      performance benchmarks.  Any observable performance degradation
      due to authentication is of interest to the SIP community.
      Whether or not the REGISTER and INVITE requests are challenged is
      a condition of test and will be recorded and reported.
   o  Re-INVITE requests are not considered in scope of this work item.
   o  Only session establishment is considered for the performance
      benchmarks.  Session disconnect is not considered in the scope of
      this work item.
   o  SIP Overload [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-reqs] [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-design] is within the scope of
      this work item.  We test to failure and then can continue to
      observe and record the behavior of the system after failures are
      recorded.  The cause of failure is not within the scope of this
      work.  We note the failure and may continue to test until a
      different failure or condition is encountered.  Considerations on
      how to handle overload are deferred to work progressing in the
      SIPPING SOC
      working group [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design]. [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-control].  Vendors are, of
      course, free to implement their specific overload control behavior
      as the expected test outcome if it is different from the IETF
      recommendations.  However, such behavior MUST be documented and
      interpreted appropriately across multiple vendor implementations.
      This will make it more meaningful to compare the performance of
      different SIP overload implementations.
   o  IMS-specific scenarios are not considered, but test cases can be
      applied with 3GPP-specific SIP signaling and the P-CSCF as a DUT.

2.2.  Benchmarking Models

   This section shows the five models to be used when benchmarking SIP
   performance of a networking device.  Figure 1 shows a configuration
   in which the Tester acting as DUT plays the Emulated agents is in loopback
   testing itself
   role of a user agent client (UAC), initiating requests and absorbing
   responses.  This model can be used as a baseline performance for the purpose of baselining its performance.
   DUT acting as a UAC without associated media.

     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester DUT    |                              | Tester |
     |   EA        |      Signaling response      |   EA   |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     +--------+                              +--------+

   Figure 1: Test topology 1 - Emulated agent (EA) baseline Baseline performance
                                measurement for DUT acting as a user agent client
                         without associated media

   Figure 2 shows the basic configuration for benchmarking DUT plays the
   Registration role of a user agent server (UAS),
   absorbing the DUT/SUT. requests and sending responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAS without
   associated media.

     +--------+      Registration      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester |                              |  DUT   |
     |   EA   |      Response                |        |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     +--------+                              +--------+

   Figure 2: Test topology 2 - Emulated Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent (EA) registration to DUT/
                                    SUT server
                         without associated media

   Figure 3 shows the DUT plays the role of a user agent client (UAC),
   initiating requests and absorbing responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAC with associated
   media.

     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | DUT    |                              | Tester |
     |        |      Signaling response      |   EA   |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     |        |<============ Media =========>|        |
     +--------+                              +--------+

   Figure 3: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent client
                           with associated media

   Figure 4 shows the DUT plays the role of a user agent server (UAS),
   absorbing the requests and sending responses.  This model can be used
   as a baseline performance for the DUT acting as a UAS with associated
   media.

     +--------+      Signaling request       +--------+
     |        +----------------------------->|        |
     | Tester |                              |  DUT   |
     |   EA   |      Response                |        |
     |        |<-----------------------------+        |
     |        |<============ Media =========>|        |
     +--------+                              +--------+

   Figure 4: Baseline performance for DUT acting as a user agent server
                           with associated media

   Figure 5 shows that the Tester acts as the initiating and responding
   Emulated Agents as the DUT/SUT forwards Session Attempts.

      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |  (EA)  |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+

     Figure 3: Test topology 3 - 5: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                               without media

   Figure 4 6 is used when performing those same benchmarks with
   Associated Media traversing the DUT/SUT.

      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |        |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |   Media     |        |   Media     |        |
      |        |<===========>|        |<===========>|        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+

     Figure 6: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                       with media traversing the DUT

   Figure 7 is to be used when performing those same benchmarks with
   Associated Media, but the media does not traverse the DUT/SUT.
   Again, the benchmarking of the media is not within the scope of this
   work item.  The SIP control signaling is benchmarked in the presence
   of Associated Media to determine if the SDP body of the signaling and
   the handling of media impacts the performance of the DUT/SUT.

      +--------+   Session   +--------+  Session    +--------+
      |        |   Attempt   |        |  Attempt    |        |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+        |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      |        |   Response  |        |  Response   |        |
      | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester |
      |        |             |        |             |  (EA)  |
      |        |             |        |             |        |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+
          /|\                                           /|\
           |                    Media                    |
           +=============================================+

     Figure 7: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                      with media external to the DUT

   Figure 8 is used when performing benchmarks that require one or more
   intermediaries to be in the signaling path.  The intent is to gather
   benchmarking statistics with a series of DUTs in place.  In this
   topology, the media is delivered end-to-end and does not traverse the
   DUT.

                                  SUT
     '--------------------------^^^^^^^^-----------------------`
    /                                                           \
      +------+ Session  +---+ Session  +---+ Session  +------+
      |      | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |      |
      |      |<---------+   |<---------+   |<---------+      |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |      | Response |   | Response |   | Response |      |
      |Tester+--------->|DUT+--------->|DUT|--------->|Tester|
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |  (EA)      |          |   |   Media          |   |   Media          |      |
      +------+          +---+          +---+          +------+
          /|\                                           /|\
           |        |<===========>|        |<===========>|                    Media                    |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+
           +=============================================+

     Figure 4: Test topology 4 - 8: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                  with multiple DUTs and end-to-end media traversing the DUT

   Figure 5 9 is to be used when performing those same benchmarks with
   Associated Media, but the media does not traverse the DUT/SUT.
   Again, the benchmarking of the media is not within that require one or more
   intermediaries to be in the scope of this
   work item.  The SIP control signaling path.  The intent is benchmarked in the presence
   of Associated Media to determine if the SDP body gather
   benchmarking statistics with a series of DUTs in place.  In this
   topology, the signaling and
   the handling of media impacts the performance of the DUT/SUT.

      +--------+ is delivered hop-by-hop through each DUT.

                                  SUT
     '--------------------------^^^^^^^^-----------------------`
    /                                                           \
      +------+ Session   +--------+  +---+ Session    +--------+  +---+ Session  +------+
      |      | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |   | Attempt  |      |
      |        |<------------+        |<------------+      |<---------+   |<---------+   |<---------+      |
      |      |          |   |          |   |          |      |
      |      | Response |   | Response |   | Response | Tester +------------>|  DUT   +------------>| Tester      |
      |Tester+--------->|DUT+--------->|DUT|--------->|Tester|
      |      |          |   |          |  (EA)   |          |      |
      |      |          |   |
      +--------+             +--------+             +--------+
          /|\                                           /|\          |                    Media   |
           +=============================================+          |      |
      |      |<========>|   |<========>|   |<========>|      |
      +------+ Media    +---+ Media    +---+ Media    +------+

     Figure 5: Test topology 5 - 9: DUT/SUT performance benchmark for session establishment
                 with multiple DUTs and  hop- by-hop media external to the DUT

   Figure 6 10 illustrates the SIP signaling for an Established Session.
   The Tester acts as the Emulated Agent(s) and initiates a Session
   Attempt with the DUT/SUT.  When the Emulated Agent (EA) receives a
   200 OK from the DUT/SUT that session is considered to be an
   Established Session.  The illustration indicates three states of the
   session bring created by the EA - Attempting, Established, and
   Disconnecting.  Sessions can be one of two type: Invite-Initiated
   Session (IS) or Non-Invite Initiated Session (NS).  Failure for the
   DUT/SUT to successfully respond within the Establishment Threshold
   Time is considered a Session Attempt Failure.  SIP Invite messages
   MUST include the SDP body to specify the Associated Media.  Use of
   Associated Media, to be sourced from the EA, is optional.  When
   Associated Media is used, it may traverse the DUT/SUT depending upon
   the type of DUT/SUT.  The Associated Media is shown in Figure 6 10 as
   "Media" connected to media ports M1 and M2 on the EA.  After the EA
   sends a BYE, the session disconnects.  Performance test cases for
   session disconnects are not considered in this work item (the BYE
   request is shown for completeness.)

            EA           DUT/SUT   M1       M2
            |               |       |       |
            |    INVITE     |       |       |
   --------+--------------->|       |       |
            |               |       |       |
   Attempting               |       |       |
            |    200 OK     |       |       |
   --------|<-------------- |       |       |
            |               |       |       |
            |               |       |       |
            |               |       | Media |
   Established              |       |<=====>|
            |               |       |       |
            |      BYE      |       |       |
   --------+--------------> |       |       |
            |               |       |       |
   Disconnecting            |       |       |
            |   200 OK      |       |       |
   --------|<-------------- |       |       |
            |               |       |       |

                    Figure 6: 10: Basic SIP test topology

3.  Term Definitions

3.1.  Protocol Components
3.1.1.  Session

   Definition:
      The combination of signaling and media messages and processes that
      enable two or more participants to communicate.

   Discussion:
      SIP messages in the signaling plane can be used to create and
      manage applications for one or more end users.  SIP is often used
      to create and manage media streams in support of applications.  A
      session always has a signaling component and may have a media
      component.  Therefore, a Session may be defined as signaling only
      or a combination of signaling and media (c.f.  Associated Media,
      see Section 3.1.4).  SIP includes definitions of a Call-ID, a
      dialogue and a transaction that support this application.  A
      growing number of usages and applications do not require the
      creation of associated media.  The first such usage was the
      REGISTER.  Applications that use the MESSAGE and SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY
      methods also do not require SIP to manage media streams.  The
      terminology Invite-initiated Session (IS) and Non-invite initiated
      Session (NS) are used to distinguish between these different
      usages.

      A Session in the context of this document, is considered to be a
      vector with three components:

      1.  A component in the signaling plane (SIP messages), sess.sig;
      2.  A media component in the media plane (RTP and SRTP streams for
          example), sess.med (which may be null);
      3.  A control component in the media plane (RTCP messages for
          example), sess.medc (which may be null).

      An IS is expected to have non-null sess.sig and sess.med
      components.  The use of control protocols in the media component
      is media dependent, thus the expected presence or absence of
      sess.medc is media dependent and test-case dependent.  An NS is
      expected to have a non-null sess.sig component, but null sess.med
      and sess.medc components.

      Packets in the Signaling Plane and Media Plane will be handled by
      different processes within the DUT.  They will take different
      paths within a SUT.  These different processes and paths may
      produce variations in performance.  The terminology and benchmarks
      defined in this document and the methodology for their use are
      designed to enable us to compare performance of the DUT/SUT with
      reference to the type of SIP-supported application it is handling.

      Note that one or more sessions can simultaneously exist between
      any participants.  This can be the case, for example, when the EA
      sets up both an IM and a voice call through the DUT/SUT.  These
      sessions are represented as an array session[x].

      Sessions will be represented as a vector array with three
      components, as follows:
      session->
      session[x].sig, the signaling component
      session[x].medc, the media control component (e.g.  RTCP)
      session[x].med[y], an array of associated media streams (e.g.
      RTP, SRTP, RTSP, MSRP).  This media component may consist of zero
      or more media streams.
      Figure 7 11 models the vectors of the session.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      Signaling Plane
      Associated Media
      Invite-initiated Session (IS)
      Non-invite-initiated Session (NS)
                    |\
                    |
                    |   \
            sess.sig|
                    |     \
                    |
                    |       \
                    |         o
                    |        /
                    |       / |
                    |      /
                    |     /   |
                    |    /
                    |   /     |
                    |  /
                    | /       |   sess.medc
                    |/_____________________
                   /               /
                  /           |
                 /               /
     sess.med   /             |
               /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/
              /
             /
            /
           /

               Figure 7: 11: Application or session components

3.1.2.  Signaling Plane

   Definition:
      The control plane in which SIP messages [RFC3261] are exchanged
      between SIP Agents [RFC3261] to establish a connection for media
      exchange.

   Discussion:
      SIP messages are used to establish sessions in several ways:
      directly between two User Agents [RFC3261], through a Proxy Server
      [RFC3261], or through a series of Proxy Servers.  The Signaling
      Plane MUST include the Session Description Protocol (SDP).
      The Signaling Plane for a single Session is represented by
      session.sig.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      Emulated Agents

3.1.3.  Media Plane

   Definition:
      The data plane in which one or more media streams and their
      associated media control protocols are exchanged after a media
      connection has been created by the exchange of signaling messages
      in the Signaling Plane.

   Discussion:
      Media may also be known as the "bearer channel".  The Media Plane
      MUST include the media control protocol, if one is used, and the
      media stream(s).  Examples of media are audio, video, whiteboard,
      and instant messaging service.  The media stream is described in
      the SDP of the Signaling Plane.
      The media for a single Session is represented by session.med.  The
      media control protocol is represented by session.medc.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Signaling Plane

3.1.4.  Associated Media

   Definition:
      Media that corresponds to an 'm' line in the SDP payload of the
      Signaling Plane.

   Discussion:

      Any media protocol MAY be used.
      For any session's signaling component, represented as session.sig,
      there may be one or multiple associated media streams which are
      represented be a vector array session.med[y], which is referred to
      as the Associated Media.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

3.1.5.  Overload

   Definition:
      Overload is defined as the state where a SIP server does not have
      sufficient resources to process all incoming SIP messages
      [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-reqs].
      [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-design].  The distinction between an
      overload condition and other failure scenarios is outside the
      scope of this document which is blackbox testing.

   Discussion:
      Under overload conditions, all or a percentage of Session Attempts
      will fail due to lack of resources.  SIP server resources may
      include CPU processing capacity, network bandwidth, input/output
      queues, or disk resources.  Any combination of resources may be
      fully utilized when a SIP server (the DUT/SUT) is in the overload
      condition.  For proxy-only type of devices, overload issues will
      be dominated by the number of signaling messages they can handle
      in a unit time before their throughput starts to drop.
      For UA-type of network devices (e.g., gateways), overload must
      necessarily include both the signaling traffic and media streams.
      It is expected that the amount of signaling that a UA can handle
      is inversely proportional to the amount of media streams currently
      handled by that UA.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      The issue of overload in SIP networks is currently a topic of
      discussion in the SIPPING WG.  The normal response to an overload
      stimulus -- sending a 503 response -- is considered inadequate and
      new response codes and behaviors may be specified in the future.
      From the perspective of this document, all these responses will be
      considered to be failures.  There is thus no dependency between
      this document and the ongoing work on the treatment of overload
      failure.

3.1.6.  Session Attempt

   Definition:
      A SIP Session for which the Emulated Agent has sent the SIP INVITE
      or SUBSCRIBE NOTIFY and has not yet received a message response
      from the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      The attempted session may be an IS or an NS.  The Session Attempt
      includes SIP INVITEs and SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY messages.  It also
      includes all INVITEs that are rejected for lack of authentication
      information.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Session Attempt Rate
      Invite-initiated Session
      Non-Invite initiated Session

3.1.7.  Established Session

   Definition:
      A SIP session for which the Emulated Agent acting as the UE/UA has
      received a 200 OK message from the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      An Established Session MAY be type INVITE-Session (IS) or Non-
      INVITE Session (NS).

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

      Invite-initiated Session
      Session Attempting State
      Session Disconnecting State

3.1.8.  Invite-initiated Session (IS)

   Definition:
      A Session that is created by an exchange of messages in the
      Signaling Plane, the first of which is a SIP INVITE request.

   Discussion:
      An IS is identified by the Call-ID, To-tag, and From-tag of the
      SIP message that establishes the session.  These three fields are
      used to identify a SIP Dialog (RFC3261 [RFC3261]).  An IS may have
      Associated Media description in the SDP body.  An IS may have
      multiple Associated Media streams.  The inclusion of media is test
      case dependent.  An IS is successfully established if the
      following two conditions are met:
      1.  Sess.sig is established by the end of Establishment Threshold
          Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3), and
      2.  If a media session is described in the SDP body of the
          signaling message, then the media session is established by
          the end of Establishment Threshold Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3).

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Non-Invite initiated Session
      Associated Media

3.1.9.  Non-INVITE-initiated Session (NS)

   Definition:
      A session that is created by an exchange of messages in the
      Signaling Plane that does not include an initial SIP INVITE
      message.

   Discussion:
      An NS is successfully established if the Session Attempt via a
      non- INVITE request results in the EA receiving a 2xx reply from
      the DUT/SUT before the expiration of the Establishment Threshold
      timer (c.f., Section 3.3.3).  An example of a NS is a session
      created by the SUBSCRIBE request.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Invite-initiated Session

3.1.10.  Session Attempt Failure

   Definition:
      A session attempt that does not result in an Established Session.

   Discussion:
      The session attempt failure may be indicated by the following
      observations at the Emulated Agent:
      1.  Receipt of a SIP 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx class response to a Session
          Attempt.
      2.  The lack of any received SIP response to a Session Attempt
          within the Establishment Threshold Time (c.f.  Section 3.3.3).

   Measurement Units:
      N/A.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Attempt

3.1.11.  Standing Sessions Count

   Definition:
      The number of Sessions currently established on the DUT/SUT at any
      instant.

   Discussion:
      The number of Standing Sessions is influenced by the Session
      Duration and the Session Attempt Rate.  Benchmarks MUST be
      reported with the maximum and average Standing Sessions for the
      DUT/SUT.  In order to determine the maximum and average Standing
      Sessions on the DUT/SUT for the duration of the test it is
      necessary to make periodic measurements of the number of Standing
      Sessions on the DUT/SUT.  The recommended value for the
      measurement period is 1 second.

   Measurement Units:
      Number of sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Duration
      Session Attempt Rate
      Session Attempt Rate

3.2.  Test Components

3.2.1.  Emulated Agent

   Definition:
      A device in test topology that initiates/responds to SIP messages
      as one or more session endpoints and, wherever applicable,
      sources/receives Associated Media for Established Sessions.

   Discussion:
      The Emulated Agent functions in the signaling and media planes.
      The Tester may act as multiple Emulated Agents.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Plane
      Signaling Plane
      Established Session
      Associated Media

3.2.2.  Signaling Server

   Definition:
      Device in test topology that acts to create sessions between
      Emulated Agents in the media plane.  This device is either a DUT
      or component of a SUT.

   Discussion:
      The DUT MUST be a RFC 3261 capable network equipment such as a
      Registrar, Redirect Server, User Agent Server, Stateless Proxy, or
      Stateful Proxy.  A DUT MAY also include B2BUA or SBC.

   Measurement Units:
      NA

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Signaling Plane

3.2.3.  SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall

   Definition:
      Device in test topology that provides Denial-of-Service (DoS)
      Protection to the Signaling and Media Planes for the Emulated
      Agents and Signaling Server

   Discussion:
      The SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall MAY be an internal component or
      function of the Session Server.  The SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall
      MAY be a standalone device.  If it is a standalone device it MUST
      be paired with a Signaling Server.  If it is a standalone device
      it MUST be benchmarked as part of a SUT.  SIP-Aware Stateful
      Firewalls MAY include Network Address Translation (NAT)
      functionality.  Ideally, the inclusion of the SIP-Aware Stateful
      Firewall as a SUT has no degradation to the measured performance
      benchmarks.

   Measurement Units:
      N/A

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.2.4.  SIP Transport Protocol

   Definition:

      The protocol used for transport of the Signaling Plane messages.

   Discussion:
      Performance benchmarks may vary for the same SIP networking device
      depending upon whether TCP, UDP, TLS, SCTP, or another transport
      layer protocol is used.  For this reason it MAY be necessary to
      measure the SIP Performance Benchmarks using these various
      transport protocols.  Performance Benchmarks MUST report the SIP
      Transport Protocol used to obtain the benchmark results.

   Measurement Units:
      TCP,UDP, SCTP, TLS over TCP, TLS over UDP, or TLS over SCTP

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.3.  Test Setup Parameters

3.3.1.  Session Attempt Rate

   Definition:
      Configuration of the Emulated Agent for the number of sessions
      that the Emulated Agent attempts to establish with the DUT/SUT
      over a specified time interval.

   Discussion:
      The Session Attempt Rate can cause variation in performance
      benchmark measurements.  Since this is the number of sessions
      configured on the Tester, some sessions may not be successfully
      established on the DUT.  A session may be either an IS or an NS.

   Measurement Units:
      Session attempts per second

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session
      Session Attempt

3.3.2.  IS Media Attempt Rate
   Definition:
      Configuration on the Emulated Agent for number of ISs with
      Associated Media to be established at the DUT per continuous one-
      second time intervals.

   Discussion:
      Note that a Media Session MUST be associated with an IS.  In this
      document we assume that there is a one to one correspondence
      between IS session attempts and Media Session attempts.  By
      including this definition we leave open the possibility that there
      may be an IS that does not include a media description.  Also note
      that the IS Media Attempt Rate defines the number of media
      sessions we are trying to create, not the number of media sessions
      that are actually created.  Variations in the Media Session
      Attempt Rate might cause variations in performance benchmark
      measurements.  Some attempts might not result in successful
      sessions established on the DUT.

   Measurement Units:
      session attempts per second (saps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      IS

3.3.3.  Establishment Threshold Time

   Definition:
      Configuration of the Emulated Agent for representing the amount of
      time that an Emulated Agent will wait before declaring a Session
      Attempt Failure.

   Discussion:
      This time duration is test dependent.
      It is RECOMMENDED that the Establishment Threshold Time value be
      set to Timer B (for ISs) or Timer F (for NSs) as specified in RFC
      3261, Table 4 [RFC3261].  Following the default value of T1
      (500ms) specified in the table and a constant multiplier of 64
      gives a value of 32 seconds for this timer (i.e., 500ms * 64 =
      32s).

   Measurement Units:

      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      session establishment failure

3.3.4.  Session Duration

   Definition:
      Configuration of the Emulated Agent that represents the amount of
      time that the SIP dialog is intended to exist between the two EAs
      associated with the test.

   Discussion:
      The time at which the BYE is sent will control the Session
      Duration
      Normally the Session Duration will be the same as the Media
      Session Hold Time.  However, it is possible that the dialog
      established between the two EAs can support different media
      sessions at different points in time.  Providing both parameters
      allows the testing agency to explore this possibility.

   Measurement Units:
      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Media Session Hold Time

3.3.5.  Media Packet Size

   Definition:
      Configuration on the Emulated Agent for a fixed size of packets
      used for media streams.

   Discussion:
      For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the same size packet
      for media streams.  The size of packets can cause variation in
      performance benchmark measurements.

   Measurement Units:
      bytes

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.3.6.  Media Offered Load

   Definition:
      Configuration of the Emulated Agent for the constant rate of
      Associated Media traffic offered by the Emulated Agent to the DUT/
      SUT for one or more Established Sessions of type IS.

   Discussion:
      The Media Offered Load to be used for a test MUST be reported with
      three components:
      1.  per Associated Media stream;
      2.  per IS;
      3.  aggregate.
      For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the same Media
      Offered Load per Media Stream.  There may be multiple Associated
      Media streams per IS.  The aggregate is the sum of all Associated
      Media for all IS.

   Measurement Units:
      packets per second (pps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Invite Initiated Session
      Associated Media

3.3.7.  Media Session Hold Time

   Definition:
      Parameter configured at the Emulated Agent, that represents the
      amount of time that the Associated Media for an Established
      Session of type IS will last.

   Discussion:
      The Associated Media streams may be bi-directional or uni-
      directional as indicated in the test methodology.
      Normally the Media Session Hold Time will be the same as the
      Session Duration.  However, it is possible that the dialog
      established between the two EAs can support different media
      sessions at different points in time.  Providing both parameters
      allows the testing agency to explore this possibility.

   Measurement Units:
      seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Associated Media
      Established Session
      Invite-initiated Session (IS)

3.3.8.  Loop Detection Option

   Definition:
      An option that causes a Proxy to check for loops in the routing of
      a SIP request before forwarding the request.

   Discussion:
      This is an optional process that a SIP proxy may employ; the
      process is described under Proxy Behavior in RFC 3261 in Section
      16.3 Request Validation and that section also contains suggestions
      as to how the option could be implemented.  Any procedure to
      detect loops will use processor cycles and hence could impact the
      performance of a proxy.

   Measurement Units:
      NA

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.3.9.  Forking Option
   Definition:
      An option that enables a Proxy to fork requests to more than one
      destination.

   Discussion:
      This is an process that a SIP proxy may employ to find the UAS.
      The option is described under Proxy Behavior in RFC 3261 in
      Section 16.1.  A proxy that uses forking must maintain state
      information and this will use processor cycles and memory.  Thus
      the use of this option could impact the performance of a proxy and
      different implementations could produce different impacts.
      SIP supports serial or parallel forking.  When performing a test,
      the type of forking mode MUST be indicated.

   Measurement Units:
      The number of endpoints that will receive the forked invitation.
      A value of 1 indicates that the request is destined to only one
      endpoint, a value of 2 indicates that the request is forked to two
      endpoints, and so on.  This is an integer value ranging between 1
      and N inclusive, where N is the maximum number of endpoints to
      which the invitation is sent.
      Type of forking used, namely parallel or serial.

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.4.  Benchmarks

3.4.1.  Registration Rate

   Definition:
      The maximum number of registrations that can be successfully
      completed by the DUT/SUT in a given time period.

   Discussion:
      This benchmark is obtained with zero failure in which 100% of the
      registrations attempted by the Emulated Agent are successfully
      completed by the DUT/SUT.  The maximum value is obtained by
      testing to failure.  This means that the registration rate
      provisioned on the EA is raised progressively until a registration
      attempt failure is observed.

   Measurement Units:
      registrations per second (rps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

3.4.2.  Session Establishment Rate

   Definition:
      The average maximum rate at which the DUT/SUT can successfully
      establish sessions.

   Discussion:
      This metric is an average of maxima.  Each maximum is measured in
      a separate sample.  The Session Establishment Rate is the average
      of the maximas established in each individual sample.  In each
      sample, the maximum in question is the number of sessions
      successfully established in continuous one-second intervals with
      prior sessions remaining active.  This maximum is designated in
      the equation below as "rate in sample i".  The session
      establishment rate is calculated using the following equation (n =
      number of samples):

             n
             --
             \ rate at sample i
             /
             --
           i = 1
         ---------------------
                   (n)

      In each sample, the maximum is obtained by testing to failure.
      With zero failure, 100% of the sessions introduced by the Emulated
      Agent are successfully established.  The maximum value is obtained
      by testing to failure.  This means that the Session Attempt Rate
      provisioned on the EA is raised progressively until a Session
      Attempt Failure is observed.  The maximum rate is the rate
      acheived in the interval prior to the interval in which the
      failure is observed.  Sessions may be IS or NS or a a mix of both
      and will be defined in the particular test.

   Measurement Units:
      sessions per second (sps)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Invite-initiated Sessions
      Non-INVITE initiated Sessions
      Session Attempt Rate

3.4.3.  Session Capacity

   Definition:
      The maximum value of Standing Sessions Count achieved by the DUT/
      SUT during the process of steadily increasing the number of
      Session Attempts per unit time, before the first Session Attempt
      Failure occurs.

   Discussion:
      When benchmarking Session Capacity for sessions with media it is
      required that these sessions be permanently established (i.e.,
      they remain active for the duration of the test.)  This can be
      achieved by causing the EA not to send a BYE for the duration of
      the testing.  In the signaling plane, this requirement means that
      the dialog lasts as long as the test lasts.  In order to test
      Session Capacity for sessions with media, the Media Session Hold
      Time MUST be set to infinity so that sessions remain established
      for the duration of the test.  If the DUT/SUT is dialog-stateful,
      then we expect its performance will be impacted by setting Media
      Session Hold Time to infinity, since the DUT/SUT will need to
      allocate resources to process and store the state information.
      The Session Capacity must be reported with the Session Attempt
      Rate used to reach the maximum.  Since Session Attempt Rate is a
      zero-loss measurement, there must be zero failures to achieve the
      Session Capacity.  The maximum is indicated at the Emulated Agent
      by arrival of a SIP 4xx, 5xx, or 6xx response from the DUT/SUT.
      Sessions may be IS or NS.

   Measurement Units:
      sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Session Attempt Rate
      Session Attempt Failure

3.4.4.  Session Overload Capacity

   Definition:
      The maximum number of Established Sessions that can exist
      simultaneously on the DUT/SUT until it stops responding to Session
      Attempts.

   Discussion:
      Session Overload Capacity is measured after the Session Capacity
      is measured.  The Session Overload Capacity is greater than or
      equal to the Session Capacity.  When benchmarking Session Overload
      Capacity, continue to offer Session Attempts to the DUT/SUT after
      the first Session Attempt Failure occurs and measure Established
      Sessions until no there is no SIP message response for the
      duration of the Establishment Threshold.  It is worth noting that
      the Session Establishment Performance is expected to decrease
      after the first Session Attempt Failure occurs.

   Units:
      Sessions

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Overload
      Session Capacity
      Session Attempt Failure

3.4.5.  Session Establishment Performance

   Definition:
      The percent of Session Attempts that become Established Sessions
      over the duration of a benchmarking test.

   Discussion:
      Session Establishment Performance is a benchmark to indicate
      session establishment success for the duration of a test.  The
      duration for measuring this benchmark is to be specified in the
      Methodology.  The Session Duration SHOULD be configured to
      infinity so that sessions remain established for the entire test
      duration.

      Session Establishment Performance is calculated as shown in the
      following equation:

          Session Establishment = Total Established Sessions
          Performance             --------------------------
                                  Total Session Attempts

      Session Establishment Performance may be monitored real-time
      during a benchmarking test.  However, the reporting benchmark MUST
      be based on the total measurements for the test duration.

   Measurement Units:
      Percent (%)

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Established Session
      Session Attempt

3.4.6.  Session Attempt Delay

   Definition:
      The average time measured at the Emulated Agent for a Session
      Attempt to result in an Established Session.

   Discussion:
      Time is measured from when the EA sends the first INVITE for the
      call-ID in the case of an IS.  Time is measured from when the EA
      sends the first non-INVITE message in the case of an NS.  Session
      Attempt Delay MUST be measured for every established session to
      calculate the average.  Session Attempt Delay MUST be measured at
      the Maximum Session Establishment Rate.

   Measurement Units:
      Seconds

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Maximum Session Establishment Rate

3.4.7.  IM Rate
   Definition:
      Maximum number of IM messages completed by the DUT/SUT.

   Discussion:
      For a UAS, the definition of success is the receipt of an IM
      request and the subsequent sending of a final response.
      For a UAC, the definition of success is the sending of an IM
      request and the receipt of a final response to it.  For a proxy,
      the definition of success is as follows:
      A.  the number of IM requests it receives from the upstream client
          MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it sent to the
          downstream server; and
      B.  the number of IM responses it receives from the downstream
          server MUST be equal to the number of IM requests sent to the
          downstream server; and
      C.  the number of IM responses it sends to the upstream client
          MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it received from
          the upstream client.

   Measurement Units:
      IM messages per second

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA considerations.

5.  Security Considerations

   Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
   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 [RFC3261], RFC 3550 [RFC3550], RFC3711
   [RFC3711] and various other drafts.  This document attempts to
   formalize a set of common terminology for benchmarking SIP networks.
   Packets with unintended and/or unauthorized DSCP or IP precedence
   values may present security issues.  Determining the security
   consequences of such packets is out of scope for this document.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Daryl
   Malas, Al Morton, and Henning Schulzrinne for invaluable
   contributions to this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [I-D.ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth]
              Poretsky, S.,
              Davids, C., Gurbani, V., and C. Davids, S. Poretsky, "Methodology for
              Benchmarking SIP Networking Devices",
              draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-02
              draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-03 (work in progress),
              July 2010.
              March 2011.

7.2.  Informational References

   [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
              Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.

   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
              interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-design]

   [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-design]
              Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design
              Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
              Overload Control", draft-ietf-sipping-overload-design-02 draft-ietf-soc-overload-design-05 (work
              in progress), July 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-overload-reqs]
              Rosenberg, J., "Requirements for Management of Overload in
              the Session March 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-soc-overload-control]
              Gurbani, V., Hilt, V., and H. Schulzrinne, "Session
              Initiation Protocol",
              draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs-05 Protocol (SIP) Overload Control",
              draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02 (work in progress),
              July 2008.
              February 2011.

Appendix A.  White Box Benchmarking Terminology

   Session Attempt Arrival Rate

   Definition:
      The number of Session Attempts received at the DUT/SUT over a
      specified time period.

   Discussion:
      Sessions Attempts are indicated by the arrival of SIP INVITES OR
      SUBSCRIBE NOTIFY messages.  Session Attempts Arrival Rate
      distribution can be any model selected by the user of this
      document.  It is important when comparing benchmarks of different
      devices that same distribution model was used.  Common
      distributions are expected to be Uniform and Poisson.

   Measurement Units:
      Session attempts/sec

   Issues:
      None.

   See Also:
      Session Attempt

Authors' Addresses

   Scott Poretsky
   Allot Communications
   300 TradeCenter, Suite 4680
   Woburn, MA  08101

   Carol Davids
   Illinois Institute of Technology
   201 East Loop Road
   Wheaton, IL  60187
   USA

   Phone: +1 508 309 2179 630 682 6024
   Email: sporetsky@allot.com davids@iit.edu
   Vijay K. Gurbani
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Rm 9C-533
   Naperville, IL  60566
   USA

   Phone: +1 630 224 0216
   Email: vkg@alcatel-lucent.com

   Carol Davids
   Illinois Institute of Technology
   201 East Loop Road
   Wheaton, IL  60187 vkg@bell-labs.com

   Scott Poretsky
   Allot Communications
   300 TradeCenter, Suite 4680
   Woburn, MA  08101
   USA

   Phone: +1 630 682 6024 508 309 2179
   Email: davids@iit.edu sporetsky@allot.com