💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6412.txt captured on 2024-05-10 at 14:32:19.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Poretsky
Request for Comments: 6412 Allot Communications
Category: Informational B. Imhoff
ISSN: 2070-1721 F5 Networks
K. Michielsen
Cisco Systems
November 2011
Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route Convergence
Abstract
This document describes the terminology for benchmarking link-state
Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) route convergence. The terminology
is to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through
externally observable (black-box) data-plane measurements. The
terminology can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as IS-IS and
OSPF.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6412.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 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
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Existing Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Convergence Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Route Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Full Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Instants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Traffic Start Instant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Convergence Event Instant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Convergence Recovery Instant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.4. First Route Convergence Instant . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Convergence Event Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Convergence Recovery Transition . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1. Local Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2. Remote Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.3. Preferred Egress Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.4. Next-Best Egress Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Benchmarking Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.1. Rate-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.2. Loss-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.3. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6. Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.1. Full Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.2. First Route Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.3. Route-Specific Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.4. Loss-Derived Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6.5. Route Loss of Connectivity Period . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.6. Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period . . . . . . . 22
3.7. Measurement Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.1. Convergence Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.2. Convergence Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.3. Connectivity Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7.4. Packet Sampling Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7.5. Sustained Convergence Validation Time . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.6. Forwarding Delay Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.8. Miscellaneous Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.8.1. Impaired Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
1. Introduction and Scope
This document is a companion to [Po11m], which contains the
methodology to be used for benchmarking link-state Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) convergence by observing the data plane. The purpose
of this document is to introduce new terms required to complete
execution of the Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route Convergence
methodology [Po11m].
IGP convergence time is measured by observing the data plane through
the Device Under Test (DUT) at the Tester. The methodology and
terminology to be used for benchmarking IGP convergence can be
applied to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and link-state IGPs such as
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) [Ca90][Ho08], Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) [Mo98] [Co08], and others.
2. Existing Definitions
This document uses existing terminology defined in other IETF
documents. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Throughput [Br91], Section 3.17
Offered Load [Ma98], Section 3.5.2
Forwarding Rate [Ma98], Section 3.6.1
Device Under Test (DUT) [Ma98], Section 3.1.1
System Under Test (SUT) [Ma98], Section 3.1.2
Out-of-Order Packet [Po06], Section 3.3.4
Duplicate Packet [Po06], Section 3.3.5
Stream [Po06], Section 3.3.2
Forwarding Delay [Po06], Section 3.2.4
IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV) [De02], Section 1.2
Loss Period [Ko02], Section 4
The keywords "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
[Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these keywords 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.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
3. Term Definitions
3.1. Convergence Types
3.1.1. Route Convergence
Definition:
The process of updating all components of the router, including
the Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base
(FIB), along with software and hardware tables, with the most
recent route change(s) such that forwarding for a route entry is
successful on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Section 3.4.4).
Discussion:
In general, IGP convergence does not necessarily result in a
change in forwarding. But the test cases in [Po11m] are specified
such that the IGP convergence results in a change of egress
interface for the measurement data-plane traffic. Due to this
property of the test case specifications, Route Convergence can be
observed externally by the rerouting of the measurement data-plane
traffic to the Next-Best Egress Interface (Section 3.4.4).
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Next-Best Egress Interface, Full Convergence
3.1.2. Full Convergence
Definition:
Route Convergence for all routes in the Forwarding Information
Base (FIB).
Discussion:
In general, IGP convergence does not necessarily result in a
change in forwarding. But the test cases in [Po11m] are specified
such that the IGP convergence results in a change of egress
interface for the measurement data-plane traffic. Due to this
property of the test cases specifications, Full Convergence can be
observed externally by the rerouting of the measurement data-plane
traffic to the Next-Best Egress Interface (Section 3.4.4).
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Next-Best Egress Interface, Route Convergence
3.2. Instants
3.2.1. Traffic Start Instant
Definition:
The time instant the Tester sends out the first data packet to the
DUT.
Discussion:
If using the Loss-Derived Method (Section 3.5.2) or the Route-
Specific Loss-Derived Method (Section 3.5.3) to benchmark IGP
convergence time, and the applied Convergence Event
(Section 3.7.1) does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all
routes at the Convergence Event Instant (Section 3.2.2), then the
Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Traffic Start Instant in
order to measure the period of time between the Traffic Start
Instant and Convergence Event Instant.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions), reported with resolution sufficient to
distinguish between different instants
See Also:
Loss-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method,
Convergence Event, Convergence Event Instant
3.2.2. Convergence Event Instant
Definition:
The time instant that a Convergence Event (Section 3.7.1) occurs.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Discussion:
If the Convergence Event (Section 3.7.1) causes instantaneous
traffic loss on the Preferred Egress Interface (Section 3.4.3),
the Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data plane as
the instant that no more packets are received on the Preferred
Egress Interface.
The Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp on the Convergence Event
Instant if the Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous
traffic loss on the Preferred Egress Interface (Section 3.4.3).
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions), reported with resolution sufficient to
distinguish between different instants
See Also:
Convergence Event, Preferred Egress Interface
3.2.3. Convergence Recovery Instant
Definition:
The time instant that Full Convergence (Section 3.1.2) has
completed.
Discussion:
The Full Convergence completed state MUST be maintained for an
interval of duration equal to the Sustained Convergence Validation
Time (Section 3.7.5) in order to validate the Convergence Recovery
Instant.
The Convergence Recovery Instant is observable from the data plane
as the instant the DUT forwards traffic to all destinations over
the Next-Best Egress Interface (Section 3.4.4) without
impairments.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions), reported with resolution sufficient to
distinguish between different instants
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
See Also:
Sustained Convergence Validation Time, Full Convergence, Next-Best
Egress Interface
3.2.4. First Route Convergence Instant
Definition:
The time instant the first route entry completes Route Convergence
(Section 3.1.1)
Discussion:
Any route may be the first to complete Route Convergence. The
First Route Convergence Instant is observable from the data plane
as the instant that the first packet that is not an Impaired
Packet (Section 3.8.1) is received from the Next-Best Egress
Interface (Section 3.4.4) or, for the test cases with Equal Cost
Multi-Path (ECMP) or Parallel Links, the instant that the
Forwarding Rate on the Next-Best Egress Interface (Section 3.4.4)
starts to increase.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions), reported with resolution sufficient to
distinguish between different instants
See Also:
Route Convergence, Impaired Packet, Next-Best Egress Interface
3.3. Transitions
3.3.1. Convergence Event Transition
Definition:
A time interval following a Convergence Event (Section 3.7.1) in
which the Forwarding Rate on the Preferred Egress Interface
(Section 3.4.3) gradually reduces to zero.
Discussion:
The Forwarding Rate during a Convergence Event Transition may or
may not decrease linearly.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
The Forwarding Rate observed on the DUT egress interface(s) may or
may not decrease to zero.
The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling
Interval (Section 3.7.4) influence the observations of the
Convergence Event Transition using the Rate-Derived Method
(Section 3.5.1).
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Convergence Event, Preferred Egress Interface, Packet Sampling
Interval, Rate-Derived Method
3.3.2. Convergence Recovery Transition
Definition:
A time interval following the First Route Convergence Instant
(Section 3.4.4) in which the Forwarding Rate on the DUT egress
interface(s) gradually increases to equal to the Offered Load.
Discussion:
The Forwarding Rate observed during a Convergence Recovery
Transition may or may not increase linearly.
The Offered Load, the number of routes, and the Packet Sampling
Interval (Section 3.7.4) influence the observations of the
Convergence Recovery Transition using the Rate-Derived Method
(Section 3.5.1).
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
First Route Convergence Instant, Packet Sampling Interval, Rate-
Derived Method
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
3.4. Interfaces
3.4.1. Local Interface
Definition:
An interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of a Local Interface indicates that the failure occurred
directly on the DUT.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Remote Interface
3.4.2. Remote Interface
Definition:
An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly
connected to any interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure
occurred on a neighbor router's interface that is not directly
connected to the DUT.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Local Interface
3.4.3. Preferred Egress Interface
Definition:
The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the
preferred next-hop.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Discussion:
The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior to a
Convergence Event (Section 3.7.1).
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Convergence Event, Next-Best Egress Interface
3.4.4. Next-Best Egress Interface
Definition:
The outbound interface or set of outbound interfaces in an Equal
Cost Multipath (ECMP) set or parallel link set of the Device Under
Test (DUT) for traffic routed to the second-best next-hop.
Discussion:
The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface after
a Convergence Event (Section 3.4.4).
For the test cases in [Po11m] using test topologies with an ECMP
set or parallel link set, the term Preferred Egress Interface
refers to all members of the link set.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Convergence Event, Preferred Egress Interface
3.5. Benchmarking Methods
3.5.1. Rate-Derived Method
Definition:
The method to calculate convergence time benchmarks from observing
the Forwarding Rate each Packet Sampling Interval (Section 3.7.4).
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Discussion:
Figure 1 shows an example of the Forwarding Rate change in time
during convergence as observed when using the Rate-Derived Method.
^ Traffic Convergence
Fwd | Start Recovery
Rate | Instant Instant
| Offered ^ ^
| Load --> ----------\ /-----------
| \ /<--- Convergence
| \ Packet / Recovery
| Convergence --->\ Loss / Transition
| Event \ /
| Transition \---------/ <-- Max Packet Loss
|
+--------------------------------------------------------->
^ ^ time
Convergence First Route
Event Instant Convergence Instant
Figure 1: Rate-Derived Convergence Graph
To enable collecting statistics of Out-of-Order Packets per flow
(see [Th00], Section 3), the Offered Load SHOULD consist of
multiple Streams [Po06], and each Stream SHOULD consist of a
single flow . If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic
statistics for all Streams MUST be added together.
The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed
such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of
all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an
equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send
traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset
of all routes can be used if required.
At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the
Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within each Packet
Sampling Interval. For maximum accuracy, the value of the Packet
Sampling Interval SHOULD be as small as possible, but the presence
of IP Packet Delay Variation (IPDV) [De02] may require that a
larger Packet Sampling Interval be used.
The Offered Load, IPDV, the number of routes, and the Packet
Sampling Interval influence the observations for the Rate-Derived
Method. It may be difficult to identify the different convergence
time instants in the Rate-Derived Convergence Graph. For example,
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
it is possible that a Convergence Event causes the Forwarding Rate
to drop to zero, while this may not be observed in the Forwarding
Rate measurements if the Packet Sampling Interval is too large.
IPDV causes fluctuations in the number of received packets during
each Packet Sampling Interval. To account for the presence of
IPDV in determining if a convergence instant has been reached,
Forwarding Delay SHOULD be observed during each Packet Sampling
Interval. The minimum and maximum number of packets expected in a
Packet Sampling Interval in presence of IPDV can be calculated
with Equation 1.
number of packets expected in a Packet Sampling Interval
in presence of IP Packet Delay Variation
= expected number of packets without IP Packet Delay Variation
+/-( (maxDelay - minDelay) * Offered Load)
where minDelay and maxDelay indicate (respectively) the minimum and
maximum Forwarding Delay of packets received during the Packet
Sampling Interval
Equation 1
To determine if a convergence instant has been reached, the number
of packets received in a Packet Sampling Interval is compared with
the range of expected number of packets calculated in Equation 1.
If packets are going over multiple ECMP members and one or more of
the members has failed, then the number of received packets during
each Packet Sampling Interval may vary, even excluding presence of
IPDV. To prevent fluctuation of the number of received packets
during each Packet Sampling Interval for this reason, the Packet
Sampling Interval duration SHOULD be a whole multiple of the time
between two consecutive packets sent to the same destination.
Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include
Forwarding Rate and Impaired Packet count.
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events
(Section 3.7.1) that do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for
all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD
collect a timestamp of the Convergence Event Instant
(Section 3.2.2), and the Tester SHOULD observe Forwarding Rate
separately on the Next-Best Egress Interface.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Since the Rate-Derived Method does not distinguish between
individual traffic destinations, it SHOULD NOT be used for any
route specific measurements. Therefore, the Rate-Derived Method
SHOULD NOT be used to benchmark Route Loss of Connectivity Period
(Section 3.6.5).
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Packet Sampling Interval, Convergence Event, Convergence Event
Instant, Next-Best Egress Interface, Route Loss of Connectivity
Period
3.5.2. Loss-Derived Method
Definition:
The method to calculate the Loss-Derived Convergence Time
(Section 3.6.4) and Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period
(Section 3.6.6) benchmarks from the amount of Impaired Packets
(Section 3.8.1).
Discussion:
To enable collecting statistics of Out-of-Order Packets per flow
(see [Th00], Section 3), the Offered Load SHOULD consist of
multiple Streams [Po06], and each Stream SHOULD consist of a
single flow . If sending multiple Streams, the measured traffic
statistics for all Streams MUST be added together.
The destination addresses for the Offered Load MUST be distributed
such that all routes or a statistically representative subset of
all routes are matched and each of these routes is offered an
equal share of the Offered Load. It is RECOMMENDED to send
traffic to all routes, but a statistically representative subset
of all routes can be used if required.
Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with the Rate-
Derived Method in order to observe Full Convergence completion.
The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss is collected after
Full Convergence completion.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks
for Convergence Events that cause instantaneous traffic loss for
all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD
observe the Impaired Packet count on all DUT egress interfaces
(see Connectivity Packet Loss (Section 3.7.3)).
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that
do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the
Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of
the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant,
and the Tester SHOULD observe Impaired Packet count separately on
the Next-Best Egress Interface (see Convergence Packet Loss
(Section 3.7.2)).
Since Loss-Derived Method does not distinguish between traffic
destinations and the Impaired Packet statistics are only collected
after Full Convergence completion, this method can only be used to
measure average values over all routes. For these reasons, Loss-
Derived Method can only be used to benchmark Loss-Derived
Convergence Time (Section 3.6.4) and Loss-Derived Loss of
Connectivity Period (Section 3.6.6).
Note that the Loss-Derived Method measures an average over all
routes, including the routes that may not be impacted by the
Convergence Event, such as routes via non-impacted members of ECMP
or parallel links.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity
Period, Connectivity Packet Loss, Convergence Packet Loss
3.5.3. Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method
Definition:
The method to calculate the Route-Specific Convergence Time
(Section 3.6.3) benchmark from the amount of Impaired Packets
(Section 3.8.1) during convergence for a specific route entry.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Discussion:
To benchmark Route-Specific Convergence Time, the Tester provides
an Offered Load that consists of multiple Streams [Po06]. Each
Stream has a single destination address matching a different route
entry, for all routes or a statistically representative subset of
all routes. Each Stream SHOULD consist of a single flow (see
[Th00], Section 3). Convergence Packet Loss is measured for each
Stream separately.
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method SHOULD always be combined with
the Rate-Derived Method in order to observe Full Convergence
completion. The total amount of Convergence Packet Loss
(Section 3.7.2) for each Stream is collected after Full
Convergence completion.
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method is the RECOMMENDED method to
measure convergence time benchmarks.
To measure convergence time and loss of connectivity benchmarks
for Convergence Events that cause instantaneous traffic loss for
all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD
observe Impaired Packet count on all DUT egress interfaces (see
Connectivity Packet Loss (Section 3.7.3)).
To measure convergence time benchmarks for Convergence Events that
do not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the
Convergence Event Instant, the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of
the Start Traffic Instant and of the Convergence Event Instant,
and the Tester SHOULD observe packet loss separately on the Next-
Best Egress Interface (see Convergence Packet Loss
(Section 3.7.2)).
Since Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method uses traffic streams to
individual routes, it observes Impaired Packet count as it would
be experienced by a network user. For this reason, Route-Specific
Loss-Derived Method is RECOMMENDED to measure Route-Specific
Convergence Time benchmarks and Route Loss of Connectivity Period
benchmarks.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route Loss of Connectivity
Period, Connectivity Packet Loss, Convergence Packet Loss
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
3.6. Benchmarks
3.6.1. Full Convergence Time
Definition:
The time duration of the period between the Convergence Event
Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant as observed using the
Rate-Derived Method.
Discussion:
Using the Rate-Derived Method, Full Convergence Time can be
calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event
Instant and the Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown in Equation
2.
Full Convergence Time =
Convergence Recovery Instant - Convergence Event Instant
Equation 2
The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding
Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester.
For the test cases described in [Po11m], it is expected that Full
Convergence Time equals the maximum Route-Specific Convergence
Time when benchmarking all routes in the FIB using the Route-
Specific Loss-Derived Method.
It is not possible to measure Full Convergence Time using the
Loss-Derived Method.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Full Convergence, Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived
Method, Convergence Event Instant, Convergence Recovery Instant
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
3.6.2. First Route Convergence Time
Definition:
The duration of the period between the Convergence Event Instant
and the First Route Convergence Instant as observed using the
Rate-Derived Method.
Discussion:
Using the Rate-Derived Method, First Route Convergence Time can be
calculated as the time difference between the Convergence Event
Instant and the First Route Convergence Instant, as shown with
Equation 3.
First Route Convergence Time =
First Route Convergence Instant - Convergence Event Instant
Equation 3
The Convergence Event Instant can be derived from the Forwarding
Rate observation or from a timestamp collected by the Tester.
For the test cases described in [Po11m], it is expected that First
Route Convergence Time equals the minimum Route-Specific
Convergence Time when benchmarking all routes in the FIB using the
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method.
It is not possible to measure First Route Convergence Time using
the Loss-Derived Method.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Rate-Derived Method, Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method,
Convergence Event Instant, First Route Convergence Instant
3.6.3. Route-Specific Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time it takes for Route Convergence to be completed
for a specific route, as calculated from the amount of Impaired
Packets (Section 3.8.1) during convergence for a single route
entry.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Discussion:
Route-Specific Convergence Time can only be measured using the
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method.
If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss
for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity
Packet Loss should be observed. Connectivity Packet Loss is the
combined Impaired Packet count observed on Preferred Egress
Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking
Route-Specific Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet Loss is
measured, and Equation 4 is applied for each measured route. The
calculation is equal to Equation 8 in Section 3.6.5.
Route-Specific Convergence Time =
Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route / Offered Load per route
Equation 4
If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous
traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then
the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Traffic Start Instant
and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD
observe Convergence Packet Loss separately on the Next-Best Egress
Interface. When benchmarking Route-Specific Convergence Time,
Convergence Packet Loss is measured, and Equation 5 is applied for
each measured route.
Route-Specific Convergence Time =
Convergence Packet Loss for specific route / Offered Load per route
- (Convergence Event Instant - Traffic Start Instant)
Equation 5
The Route-Specific Convergence Time benchmarks enable minimum,
maximum, average, and median convergence time measurements to be
reported by comparing the results for the different route entries.
It also enables benchmarking of convergence time when configuring
a priority value for the route entry or entries. Since multiple
Route-Specific Convergence Times can be measured, it is possible
to have an array of results. The format for reporting Route-
Specific Convergence Time is provided in [Po11m].
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
See Also:
Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method, Convergence Event, Convergence
Event Instant, Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss,
Route Convergence
3.6.4. Loss-Derived Convergence Time
Definition:
The average Route Convergence time for all routes in the
Forwarding Information Base (FIB), as calculated from the amount
of Impaired Packets (Section 3.8.1) during convergence.
Discussion:
Loss-Derived Convergence Time is measured using the Loss-Derived
Method.
If the applied Convergence Event causes instantaneous traffic loss
for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, Connectivity
Packet Loss (Section 3.7.3) should be observed. Connectivity
Packet Loss is the combined Impaired Packet count observed on
Preferred Egress Interface and Next-Best Egress Interface. When
benchmarking Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Connectivity Packet
Loss is measured, and Equation 6 is applied.
Loss-Derived Convergence Time =
Connectivity Packet Loss / Offered Load
Equation 6
If the applied Convergence Event does not cause instantaneous
traffic loss for all routes at the Convergence Event Instant, then
the Tester SHOULD collect timestamps of the Start Traffic Instant
and of the Convergence Event Instant, and the Tester SHOULD
observe Convergence Packet Loss (Section 3.7.2) separately on the
Next-Best Egress Interface. When benchmarking Loss-Derived
Convergence Time, Convergence Packet Loss is measured and Equation
7 is applied.
Loss-Derived Convergence Time =
Convergence Packet Loss / Offered Load
- (Convergence Event Instant - Traffic Start Instant)
Equation 7
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss, Route
Convergence, Loss-Derived Method
3.6.5. Route Loss of Connectivity Period
Definition:
The time duration of packet impairments for a specific route entry
following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion,
as observed using the Route-Specific Loss-Derived Method.
Discussion:
In general, the Route Loss of Connectivity Period is not equal to
the Route-Specific Convergence Time. If the DUT continues to
forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the
Convergence Event is applied, then the Route Loss of Connectivity
Period will be smaller than the Route-Specific Convergence Time.
This is also specifically the case after reversing a failure
event.
The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Route-
Specific Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the
Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping
instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion
in [Po11m].
For the test cases described in [Po11m], the Route Loss of
Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period [Ko02].
When benchmarking the Route Loss of Connectivity Period,
Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for each route, and Equation
8 is applied for each measured route entry. The calculation is
equal to Equation 4 in Section 3.6.3.
Route Loss of Connectivity Period =
Connectivity Packet Loss for specific route / Offered Load per route
Equation 8
Route Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured using Route-
Specific Loss-Derived Method.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Route-Specific Convergence Time, Route-Specific Loss-Derived
Method, Connectivity Packet Loss
3.6.6. Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period
Definition:
The average time duration of packet impairments for all routes
following a Convergence Event until Full Convergence completion,
as observed using the Loss-Derived Method.
Discussion:
In general, the Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period is not
equal to the Loss-Derived Convergence Time. If the DUT continues
to forward traffic to the Preferred Egress Interface after the
Convergence Event is applied, then the Loss-Derived Loss of
Connectivity Period will be smaller than the Loss-Derived
Convergence Time. This is also specifically the case after
reversing a failure event.
The Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the
Loss-Derived Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the
Convergence Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping
instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant. See discussion
in [Po11m].
For the test cases described in [Po11m], each route's Route Loss
of Connectivity Period is expected to be a single Loss Period
[Ko02].
When benchmarking the Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period,
Connectivity Packet Loss is measured for all routes, and Equation
9 is applied. The calculation is equal to Equation 6 in
Section 3.6.4.
Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period =
Connectivity Packet Loss for all routes / Offered Load
Equation 9
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
The Loss-Derived Loss of Connectivity Period SHOULD be measured
using the Loss-Derived Method.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Loss-Derived Convergence Time, Loss-Derived Method, Connectivity
Packet Loss
3.7. Measurement Terms
3.7.1. Convergence Event
Definition:
The occurrence of an event in the network that will result in a
change in the egress interface of the DUT for routed packets.
Discussion:
All test cases in [Po11m] are defined such that a Convergence
Event results in a change of egress interface of the DUT. Local
or remote triggers that cause a route calculation that does not
result in a change in forwarding are not considered.
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Convergence Event Instant
3.7.2. Convergence Packet Loss
Definition:
The number of Impaired Packets (Section 3.8.1) as observed on the
Next-Best Egress Interface of the DUT during convergence.
Discussion:
An Impaired Packet is considered as a lost packet.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Measurement Units:
number of packets
See Also:
Connectivity Packet Loss
3.7.3. Connectivity Packet Loss
Definition:
The number of Impaired Packets observed on all DUT egress
interfaces during convergence.
Discussion:
An Impaired Packet is considered as a lost packet. Connectivity
Packet Loss is equal to Convergence Packet Loss if the Convergence
Event causes instantaneous traffic loss for all egress interfaces
of the DUT except for the Next-Best Egress Interface.
Measurement Units:
number of packets
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
3.7.4. Packet Sampling Interval
Definition:
The interval at which the Tester (test equipment) polls to make
measurements for arriving packets.
Discussion:
At least one packet per route for all routes matched in the
Offered Load MUST be offered to the DUT within the Packet Sampling
Interval. Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST
include Forwarding Rate and received packets.
Packet Sampling Interval can influence the convergence graph as
observed with the Rate-Derived Method. This is particularly true
when implementations complete Full Convergence in less time than
the Packet Sampling Interval. The Convergence Event Instant and
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
First Route Convergence Instant may not be easily identifiable,
and the Rate-Derived Method may produce a larger than actual
convergence time.
Using a small Packet Sampling Interval in the presence of IPDV
[De02] may cause fluctuations of the Forwarding Rate observation
and can prevent correct observation of the different convergence
time instants.
The value of the Packet Sampling Interval only contributes to the
measurement accuracy of the Rate-Derived Method. For maximum
accuracy, the value for the Packet Sampling Interval SHOULD be as
small as possible, but the presence of IPDV may enforce using a
larger Packet Sampling Interval.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Rate-Derived Method
3.7.5. Sustained Convergence Validation Time
Definition:
The amount of time for which the completion of Full Convergence is
maintained without additional Impaired Packets being observed.
Discussion:
The purpose of the Sustained Convergence Validation Time is to
produce convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation in
Forwarding Rate after the completion of Full Convergence is
observed. The RECOMMENDED Sustained Convergence Validation Time
to be used is the time to send 5 consecutive packets to each
destination with a minimum of 5 seconds. The Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) selected 5 seconds based upon
[Br99], which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to
arrive (this is the Forwarding Delay Threshold for the last packet
sent) and 5 seconds for DUT restabilization.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
See Also:
Full Convergence, Convergence Recovery Instant
3.7.6. Forwarding Delay Threshold
Definition:
The maximum waiting time threshold used to distinguish between
packets with very long delay and lost packets that will never
arrive.
Discussion:
Applying a Forwarding Delay Threshold allows packets with a too
large Forwarding Delay to be considered lost, as is required for
some applications (e.g. voice, video, etc.). The Forwarding Delay
Threshold is a parameter of the methodology, and it MUST be
reported. [Br99] recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames
to arrive.
Measurement Units:
seconds (and fractions)
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss, Connectivity Packet Loss
3.8. Miscellaneous Terms
3.8.1. Impaired Packet
Definition:
A packet that experienced at least one of the following
impairments: loss, excessive Forwarding Delay, corruption,
duplication, reordering.
Discussion:
A lost packet, a packet with a Forwarding Delay exceeding the
Forwarding Delay Threshold, a corrupted packet, a Duplicate Packet
[Po06], and an Out-of-Order Packet [Po06] are Impaired Packets.
Packet ordering is observed for each individual flow (see [Th00],
Section 3) of the Offered Load.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Measurement Units:
N/A
See Also:
Forwarding Delay Threshold
4. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network or misroute traffic to the test
management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward,
Peter De Vriendt, Anuj Dewagan, Adrian Farrel, Stewart Bryant,
Francis Dupont, and the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group for
their contributions to this work.
6. Normative References
[Br91] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[Br99] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[Ca90] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
[Co08] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for
IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[De02] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
[Ho08] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
October 2008.
[Ko02] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002.
[Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[Mo98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[Po06] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
"Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control
Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.
[Po11m] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Benchmarking
Methodology for Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
Convergence", RFC 6413, November 2011.
[Th00] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 6412 IGP Convergence Benchmark Terminology November 2011
Authors' Addresses
Scott Poretsky
Allot Communications
300 TradeCenter
Woburn, MA 01801
USA
Phone: + 1 508 309 2179
EMail: sporetsky@allot.com
Brent Imhoff
F5 Networks
401 Elliott Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98119
USA
Phone: + 1 314 378 2571
EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com
Kris Michielsen
Cisco Systems
6A De Kleetlaan
Diegem, BRABANT 1831
Belgium
EMail: kmichiel@cisco.com
Poretsky, et al. Informational [Page 29]