Network Working Group Aamer Akhter
Internet Draft Rajiv Asati
Intended status: Informational
Expires: June 2008
Cisco Systems
July 7, 2008
MPLS Benchmarking Methodology
<draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-04.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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 June 7, 2008.
Abstract
The purpose of this draft is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The scope of this
benchmarking will be limited to various types of packet-forwarding
and delay measurements. It builds upon the tenets set forth in
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
RFC2544 [RFC2544], RFC1242 [RFC1242] and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Document Scope.................................................3
3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements..............................3
4. Test Methodology...............................................3
4.1. Test Considerations..........................................4
4.1.1. IGP Support................................................4
4.1.2. Label Distribution Support.................................5
4.1.3. Frame Sizes................................................5
4.1.4. TTL........................................................5
4.1.5. Trial Duration.............................................5
4.1.6. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State..............6
4.1.7. Abbreviations Used.........................................6
5. Reporting Format...............................................7
6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking tests.............................8
6.1. Throughput...................................................9
6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition ......................9
6.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap............................10
6.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition.....................11
6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate).........12
6.2. Latency Measurement.........................................13
6.3. Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)...........................15
6.4. System Recovery.............................................16
6.5. Reset.......................................................17
7. Security Considerations.......................................18
8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
9. References....................................................19
9.1. Normative References........................................19
Author's Addresses...............................................19
Intellectual Property Statement..................................20
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................20
Copyright Statement..............................................20
Acknowledgment...................................................21
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
1. Introduction
Over the past several years MPLS networks have gained greater
popularity. However, there is no standard method to compare and
contrast the varying implementations and their strong and weak
points. This document proposes a methodology using common criteria
for the comparison of various implementations of basic MPLS
forwarding devices.
The terms used in this document remain consistent with those defined
in "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
RFC1242 [RFC1242]. This terminology SHOULD be consulted before using
or applying the recommendations of this document.
2. Document Scope
MPLS [RFC3031] is a foundation enabling technology for other more
advanced technologies such as Layer 3 MPLS-VPNs, Layer 2 MPLS-VPNs,
and MPLS Traffic Engineering. This document focuses on MPLS
forwarding characterization.
3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[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.
4. Test Methodology
The set of methodologies described in this document will use the
topologies described in this section. An effort has been made to
exclude superfluous equipment needs such that each test can be
carried out with the minimum number of requirements.
Figure 1 illustrates the sample topology in which the DUT is
connected to the test ports on the test tool.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
+-----------------+
+---------+ | | +---------+
| Test | | | | Test |
| Port A1 +-----+ DA1 DB1 -----+ Port B1 |
+---------+ | | +---------+
+---------+ | DUT | +---------+
| Test | | | | Test |
| Port A2 +-----+ DA2 DB2 +-----+ Port B2 |
+---------+ | | +---------+
... | | ...
+---------+ | | +---------+
| Test | +-----------------+ | Test |
| Port Ap | | Port Bp |
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 1 Topology #1, Basic Forwarding
Where number of ports (p) is determined by the maximum
unidirectional forwarding throughput of the DUT and the load
capacity of the media between the Test Ports and DUT. For example,
if the DUT's forwarding throughput is 100 frames per second (fps),
and the media capacity is 50 fps than p = 2.
The minimum value for Bp is 2, as multiple B interfaces are needed
for head of line blocking testing (Section TBD).
4.1. Test Considerations
This methodology assumes a full-duplex uniform medium topology. The
medium used MUST be reported in each test result. Issues regarding
mixed transmission media, speed mismatches, media header differences
etc, are not under consideration. Flow control, QoS, Graceful
Restart and other non-essential traffic or traffic-effecting
features MUST be disabled, unless explicitly requested by the test
case.
4.1.1. IGP Support
It is highly RECOMMENDED that all of the interfaces (A1, DA1, DB1,
A2..) on DUT and test tool support an IGP such as IS-IS, OSPF, EIGRP
etc. Furthermore, there are testing considerations in this document
that the device is able to provide a stable control-plane during
heavy forwarding workloads. The route distribution method used
(OSPF, IS-IS etc.) MUST be reported.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
4.1.2. Label Distribution Support
The DUT and test tool must support at least one protocol for
exchanging MPLS labels. The DUT and test tool MUST be capable of
learning and advertising MPLS label bindings via the chosen
protocol(s), and use them during packet forwarding all the time
(includes when the label bindings change). The most commonly used
protocol is Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC3036], and MP-BGP
[RFC4364] for VPN.
All of the interfaces connected to the DUT such as A1, DA1, DB1, A2
etc., MUST support Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and MP-BGP for
IPv4 or IPv6 FECs.
4.1.3. Frame Sizes
5. Each test SHOULD be run with different frame sizes in different
trials. For better reference, the recommended sizes are 64, 128,
256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 for IPv4. Recommended sizes for other
media can be found in RFC 2544 and IPv6 Benchmarking [draft-ietf-
bmwg-ipv6-meth]. Frame sizes MUST be based on the pre-MPLS shim
version of the frame.
In addition to the individual frame size trials, an IMIX traffic run
SHOULD also be included.
When running trials between different frame sizes, the DUT
configuration MUST remain the same.
5.1.1. TTL
The MPLS TTL or IP TTL (depending on which portion of the packet the
DUT is basing the forwarding behavior) MUST be large enough to
traverse the DUT.
5.1.2. Trial Duration
Unless otherwise specified, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
no less than 30 seconds when static routing is in place and no less
than 200 seconds when a dynamic routing protocol and LDP (default
holddown timer is 180 seconds) are being used.
The longer trial time for when dynamic routing protocols are being
used is for verifying that the DUT is able to maintain a stable
control plane when the data-forwarding plane is under stress.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
5.1.2.1. Traffic Verification
In all cases the sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
received on the wrong port, correct port or not received at all.
Specifically, traffic loss (also referred to as frame loss) is
defined as the traffic (i.e. one or more frames) not received where
expected (i.e. received on incorrect port, or received with
incorrect layer2 or above header information etc.). In addition, the
MPLS header presence or non-presence of the packet MUST be verified,
as well as checksum, frame sequencing and correct MPLS TTL
decrementing.
The MPLS header presence will be determined by the test. Some tests
will require the MPLS header to be imposed while others will require
a swap or disposition. In general, many test tools will by default
only verify that they have received the embedded signature on the
receive side, but will not validate MPLS stack depth. An even
greater level of verification would be to check if the correct label
was imposed, but that is considered out of scope for these tests.
"In all cases the sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
received on the wrong port, correct port or not received at all. In
addition, the MPLS header...."
5.1.3. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State
If the test or media is making use of a dynamic protocol (eg ARP,
OSPF, LDP), all state for the protocols should be pre-established
before the start of the trial.
5.1.4. Abbreviations Used
5.1.4.1. MpRNy
Port based Remote Network
M := Module Side(could be A or B)
p: = port number
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
RN := Remote Network (can also be thought of as a network that is
reachable via ) Mp.
y := number of network. (ie the first network reachable via B1
would be called B1RN1 and the 5th network would be called B1RN5)
6. Reporting Format
For each test case, it is recommended that the following variables
be reported in addition to the specific parameters requested by the
test case:
Parameter Unit
Internet Protocol IPv4, IPv6
Label Distribution LDP, RSVP-TE, BGP (or
Protocol combinations)
MPLS Forwarding Imposition, Swap,
Operation Disposition
IGP ISIS, OSPF or EIGRP etc.
Throughput Frames per second
Interface Type GigE, POS, ATM etc
Interface Speed 1 gbps, 100 Mbps, etc
Interface Encapsulation VLAN, PPP, HDLC
Packet Size Bytes
Number of A and B 1A, 2B
interfaces (see Figure
1)
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
The individual test cases may have additional reporting requirements
that may refer to other RFCs.
7. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking tests
MPLS is altogether a different forwarding paradigm from IP. Unlike
IP packet and IP forwarding, MPLS packet is likely to contain more
than one MPLS headers and may go through one of three forwarding
operations - imposition, swap and disposition. Such characteristics
desire further granularity in MPLS forwarding benchmarking than
those of described in RFC2544. Thus the benchmarking includes, but
not limited to:
1. Throughput
2. Latency
3. Frame Loss rate
4. System Recovery
5. Reset
6. MPLS EXP field Operations (including explicit-null cases)
7. Negative Scenarios (TTL expiry, etc)
8. Multicast
This document focuses on the first five categories. All the
benchmarking test cases described in this document are expected to
at a minimum follow the below 'Test Setup' and 'Test Procedure.'
Test Setup
It is recommended that a single A and B interface SHOULD be used.
However, if the forwarding throughput of the DUT is more than that
of the media rate of a single interface, then additional A and B
interfaces MUST be enabled so as to exceed the DUT's forwarding
throughput. In such case, the tool traffic should use BpRN1 and
BpAN as the IP destinations in a weighted round robin fashion. The
weighting ratio between BpRN1 and BpAN is a constant test
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
parameter. A suggested ratio is 1:100 with BpAN:BpRN1. The traffic
streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544.
Test Procedure
Send traffic from port Ap towards DUT at a constant load towards
IP prefixes (BpRN1 addresses) advertised by the tool on the
receive ports, for a fixed duration of time.
If any frame loss is detected, a new iteration is needed where the
offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An
iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum
offered frame rate with a zero frame loss.
Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the
regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test
duration, number of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size
etc) constant, until the maximum rate at which none of the offered
frames are dropped is determined.
7.1. Throughput
This section contains the description of the tests that are related
to the characterization of DUT's MPLS frame forwarding.
7.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition
Objective
To obtain the maximum forwarding rate during label imposition
(i.e. IP to MPLS) for a regular (IPv4 or IPv6) packet by the DUT.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool should
advertise the IP prefix(es) i.e. RNx(using a routing protocol as
per section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label
distribution protocol as per section 1.2) on its receive ports Bp
to DUT. The test tool may learn these IP prefixes on its transmit
ports Ap from DUT.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain non-reserved MPLS
label value as the outgoing label for the learned prefix,
resulting in IP-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The testool must
receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT) with the same
label values that are advertised.
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send unlabeled IP packets on transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to above IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
include: offered load and measured throughput.
7.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap
Objective
To obtain the maximum label swap rate for a labeled packet (i.e.
MPLS to MPLS) by the DUT.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
set up to advertise IP prefix (using a routing protocol as per
section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label distribution
protocol as per section 1.2) on the receive ports Bp, and learn
the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on the transmit
ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label
values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on
ports Ap.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain non-reserved MPLS
label values as the outgoing and incoming labels for the learned
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The
testool must receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT).
The received MPLS packets must contain the same number of MPLS
headers as those of transmitted MPLS Packets.
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive MPLS packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
include: offered load and measured throughput.
7.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition
Objective
To obtain the maximum label disposition rate for MPLS packet (i.e.
MPLS to IP) by the DUT, when DUT installs "Untagged" outgoing
label.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
set up to advertise the IP prefix(es) (using a routing protocol as
per section 1.1) without any MPLS label on the receive ports Bp,
and learn the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on
the transmit ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned
MPLS label values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets
transmitted on ports Ap.
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an untagged outgoing
label for the learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding
operation. The testool must receive IP packets on receive ports Bp
(from DUT).
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
include: offered load and measured throughput.
7.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate)
Objective
To obtain the maximum label disposition rate for MPLS packet (i.e.
MPLS to IP) by the DUT, when DUT installs "Aggregate" outgoing
label.
Test Setup
In addition to setup described in section 6, the DUT should be
provisioned such that it allocates an aggregate outgoing label to
a prefix (where the prefix may be a 'BGP aggregated prefix' , 'BGP
VPN connected prefix' or an IGP aggregation that results in an
aggregate label, etc. and must include the addresses belonging to
the DUT receive ports Bp).
The DUT must advertise the IP prefix(es) along with the MPLS
label(s) via a label distribution protocol to the testool on tool
transmit ports Ap.
The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label values and
learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on ports Ap.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Discussion
The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an aggregate outgoing
label and IP forwarding table must contain a valid entry for the
learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding operation (i.e.
MPLS header removal followed by IP lookup). The testool must
receive IP packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT).
Procedure
Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
include: offered load and measured throughput.
7.2. Latency Measurement
This measures the time taken by the DUT to forward the MPLS packet
during various MPLS switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS or MPLS-to-
MPLS or MPLS-to-IP involving one or more MPLS headers.
The forwarding delay measurement requires the accurate propagation
delay measurement as a prerequisite.
One of the propagation delay measurement mechanisms is to connect
test transmit port such as A1 and test receive port such as B1 with
the wire length=X (bypass DA1 and DB1) and measure the time (t1)
taken by the packet to reach from A1 to B1.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Once the time t1 has been recorded, then the DUT should be inserted
such that the test port A1 connects to DA1 and B1 connects to DB1,
and the sum of A1-DA1 wire length and B1-DB1 wire length equals X.
The packet should be sent from A1 to B1 such that the packet is
received by DA1, which after consulting with its forwarding table,
forwards the packet to B1 via DB1. The time (t2) taken by the packet
to reach B1 (from A1) is recorded.
The difference of time t2-t1 would provide the ballpark measurement
of DUT's forwarding delay.
The measurement for t2 should be performed under each of three
forwarding operations (IP-to-MPLS, MPLS-to-MPLS, MPLS-to-IP) and
measured accordingly.
Objective
To obtain the maximum latency induced by the DUT during MPLS
packet forwarding for each of three forwarding operations.
Test Setup
Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544. Additionally, follow the associated
procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
7.3. Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)
This measures the percentage of MPLS frames that were not forwarded
during various switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS (imposition) or
MPLS-to-IP (swap) or MPLS-IP (disposition) by the DUT under
overloaded state.
Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.3 for more details.
Objective
To obtain the frame loss rate, as defined in RFC1242, for each of
three MPLS forwarding operations of a DUT, throughout the range of
input data rates and frame sizes.
Test Setup
Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544.
Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
7.4. System Recovery
Objective
To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an overload
condition.
Test Setup
Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
one by one.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.5.
Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.
7.5. Reset
Objective
To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a device or
software reset.
Test Setup
Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
one by one.
For this test, all graceful-restart features MUST be disabled.
Procedure
Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.5. Examples of hardware and
software resets are:
hardware reset - forwarding module resetting (e.g. OIR)
software reset - reset initiated through a CLI (e.g. reload)
Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -
IP-to-MPLS forwarding (Imposition) Section 6.1.1
MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding (Swap) Section 6.1.2
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Disposition) Section 6.1.3
MPLS-to-IP forwarding (Aggregate) Section 6.1.4
Reporting Format
Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4, and the
specific kind of reset performed.
8. Security Considerations
During the course of test, the test topology must be disconnected
from devices that may forward the test traffic into a production
environment.
There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
this document.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no considerations for IANA at this time.
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Rekhter, Y., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth] Popoviciu, C., et al, "IPv6 Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", draft-ietf-
bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt, October 2007.
Author's Addresses
Aamer Akhter
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27709
USA
Phone: 919 392 2564
Email: aakhter@cisco.com
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27709
USA
Phone: 919 392 8558
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
Copyright Statement
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
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology December 2007
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Scott Bradner for his very insightful comments
delivered on very short notice.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Akhter & Asati Expires June 7, 2008 [Page 21]