GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc3918

Network Working Group D. Stopp Request for Comments: 3918 Ixia Category: Informational B. Hickman

                                                Spirent Communications
                                                          October 2004
             Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

 The purpose of this document is to describe methodology specific to
 the benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices.  It builds upon
 the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 2432 and other IETF
 Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This document
 seeks to extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
 The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
 Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents.  The
 Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
 The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
 the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Key Words to Reflect Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 3.  Test Set Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Test Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
           3.1.1. IGMP Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
           3.1.2. Group Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
           3.1.3. Frame Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
           3.1.4. TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
           3.1.5. Trial Duration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
 4.  Forwarding and Throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Mixed Class Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Aggregated Multicast Throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 1] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

     4.4.  Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput . . . 10
           4.4.1. Encapsulation Throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
           4.4.2. Decapsulation Throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
           4.4.3. Re-encapsulation Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 5.  Forwarding Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  Multicast Latency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.2.  Min/Max Multicast Latency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 6.  Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     6.1.  Group Join Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     6.2.  Group Leave Delay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 7.  Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     7.1.  Multicast Group Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 8.  Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.1.  Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency. . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.2.  Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay . . . . . . . . . . 27
 9.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 11. Contributions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
 13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 14. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1. Introduction

 This document defines tests for measuring and reporting the
 throughput, forwarding, latency and Internet Group Management
 Protocol (IGMP) group membership characteristics of devices that
 support IP multicast protocols.  The results of these tests will
 provide the user with meaningful data on multicast performance.
 A previous document, "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking"
 [Du98], defined many of the terms that are used in this document.
 The terminology document should be consulted before attempting to
 make use of this document.
 This methodology will focus on one source to many destinations,
 although many of the tests described may be extended to use multiple
 source to multiple destination topologies.
 Subsequent documents may address IPv6 multicast and related multicast
 routing protocol performance.  Additional insight on IP and multicast
 networking can be found in [Hu95], [Ka98] and [Mt98].

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 2] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

2. 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
 [Br97].  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.

3. Test set up

 The set of methodologies presented in this document are for single
 ingress, multiple egress multicast scenarios as exemplified by
 Figures 1 and 2.  Methodologies for multiple ingress and multiple
 egress multicast scenarios are beyond the scope of this document.
 Figure 1 shows a typical setup for an IP multicast test, with one
 source to multiple destinations.
                   +------------+         +--------------+
                   |            |         |  destination |
 +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
 | source |        |            |         |   port(E1)   |
 |  test  |------>(|)Ingress    |         +--------------+
 |  port  |        |            |         +--------------+
 +--------+        |     Egress(-)------->|  destination |
                   |            |         |    test      |
                   |            |         |   port(E2)   |
                   |    DUT     |         +--------------+
                   |            |               . . .
                   |            |         +--------------+
                   |            |         |  destination |
                   |     Egress(-)------->|    test      |
                   |            |         |   port(En)   |
                   +------------+         +--------------+
                        Figure 1
 If the multicast metrics are to be taken across multiple devices
 forming a System Under Test (SUT), then test frames are offered to a
 single ingress interface on a device of the SUT, subsequently
 forwarded across the SUT topology, and finally forwarded to the test
 apparatus' frame-receiving components by the test egress interface(s)
 of devices in the SUT.  Figure 2 offers an example SUT test topology.
 If a SUT is tested, the test topology and all relevant configuration
 details MUST be disclosed with the corresponding test results.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 3] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

  • —————————————–*

| |

 +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
 |        |  |   +------------+    |DUT B Egress E0(-)-|->|        |
 |        |  |   |DUT A       |--->|                |  |  |        |
 | source |  |   |            |    |      Egress E1(-)-|->|  dest. |
 |  test  |--|->(-)Ingress, I |    +----------------+  |  |  test  |
 |  port  |  |   |            |    +----------------+  |  |  port  |
 |        |  |   |            |--->|DUT C Egress E2(-)-|->|        |
 |        |  |   +------------+    |                |  |  |        |
 |        |  |                     |      Egress En(-)-|->|        |
 +--------+  |                     +----------------+  |  +--------+
             |                                         |
             *------------------SUT--------------------*
                              Figure 2
 Generally, the destination test ports first join the desired number
 of multicast groups by sending IGMP Group Report messages to the
 DUT/SUT.  To verify that all destination test ports successfully
 joined the appropriate groups, the source test port MUST transmit IP
 multicast frames destined for these groups.  After test completion,
 the destination test ports MAY send IGMP Leave Group messages to
 clear the IGMP table of the DUT/SUT.
 In addition, test equipment MUST validate the correct and proper
 forwarding actions of the devices they test in order to ensure the
 receipt of the frames that are involved in the test.

3.1. Test Considerations

 The methodology assumes a uniform medium topology.  Issues regarding
 mixed transmission media, such as speed mismatch, headers
 differences, etc., are not specifically addressed.  Flow control, QoS
 and other non-essential traffic or traffic-affecting mechanisms
 affecting the variable under test MUST be disabled.  Modifications to
 the collection procedures might need to be made to accommodate the
 transmission media actually tested.  These accommodations MUST be
 presented with the test results.
 An actual flow of test traffic MAY be required to prime related
 mechanisms, (e.g., process RPF events, build device caches, etc.) to
 optimally forward subsequent traffic.  Therefore, prior to running
 any tests that require forwarding of multicast or unicast packets,
 the test apparatus MUST generate test traffic utilizing the same
 addressing characteristics to the DUT/SUT that will subsequently be

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 4] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 used to measure the DUT/SUT response.  The test monitor should ensure
 the correct forwarding of traffic by the DUT/SUT.  The priming action
 need only be repeated to keep the associated information current.
 It is the intent of this memo to provide the methodology for basic
 characterizations regarding the forwarding of multicast packets by a
 device or simple system of devices.  These characterizations may be
 useful in illustrating the impact of device architectural features
 (e.g., message passing versus shared memory; handling multicast
 traffic as an exception by the general purpose processor versus the
 by a primary data path, etc.) in the forwarding of multicast traffic.
 It has been noted that the formation of the multicast distribution
 tree may be a significant component of multicast performance. While
 this component may be present in some of the measurements or
 scenarios presented in this memo, this memo does not seek to
 explicitly benchmark the formation of the multicast distribution
 tree.  The benchmarking of the multicast distribution tree formation
 is left as future, more targeted work specific to a given tree
 formation vehicle.

3.1.1. IGMP Support

 All of the ingress and egress interfaces MUST support a version of
 IGMP.  The IGMP version on the ingress interface MUST be the same
 version of IGMP that is being tested on the egress interfaces.
 Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD be able to respond
 to IGMP queries during the test.
 Each of the ingress and egress interfaces SHOULD also send LEAVE
 (running IGMP version 2 or later) [Ca02] [Fe97] after each test.

3.1.2. Group Addresses

 There is no restriction to the use of multicast addresses [De89] to
 compose the test traffic other than those assignments imposed by
 IANA.  The IANA assignments for multicast addresses [IANA1] MUST be
 regarded for operational consistency.  Address selection does not
 need to be restricted to Administratively Scoped IP Multicast
 addresses [Me98].

3.1.3. Frame Sizes

 Each test SHOULD be run with different multicast frame sizes.  For
 Ethernet, the recommended sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280,
 and 1518 byte frames.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 5] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Other link layer technologies MAY be used.  The minimum and maximum
 frame lengths of the link layer technology in use SHOULD be tested.
 When testing with different frame sizes, the DUT/SUT configuration
 MUST remain the same.

3.1.4. TTL

 The data plane test traffic should have a TTL value large enough to
 traverse the DUT/SUT.
 The TTL in IGMP control plane messages MUST be in compliance with the
 version of IGMP in use.

3.1.5. Trial Duration

 The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be at least 30
 seconds.  This parameter MUST be included as part of the results
 reporting for each methodology.

4. Forwarding and Throughput

 This section contains the description of the tests that are related
 to the characterization of the frame forwarding of a DUT/SUT in a
 multicast environment.  Some metrics extend the concept of throughput
 presented in RFC 1242.  Forwarding Rate is cited in RFC 2285 [Ma98].

4.1. Mixed Class Throughput

 Objective:
 To determine the throughput of a DUT/SUT when both unicast class
 frames and multicast class frames are offered simultaneously to a
 fixed number of interfaces as defined in RFC 2432.
 Procedure:
 Multicast and unicast traffic are mixed together in the same
 aggregated traffic stream in order to simulate a heterogeneous
 networking environment.
 The following events MUST occur before offering test traffic:
    o  All destination test ports configured to receive multicast
       traffic MUST join all configured multicast groups;
    o  The DUT/SUT MUST learn the appropriate unicast and
       multicast addresses; and

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 6] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

    o  Group membership and unicast address learning MUST be
       verified through some externally observable method.
 The intended load [Ma98] SHOULD be configured as alternating
 multicast class frames and unicast class frames to a single ingress
 interface.  The unicast class frames MUST be configured to transmit
 in an unweighted round-robin fashion to all of the destination ports.
 For example, with six multicast groups and 3 destination ports with
 one unicast addresses per port, the source test port will offer
 frames in the following order:
    m1  u1  m2  u2  m3  u3  m4  u1  m5  u2  m6  u3  m1 ...
    Where:
    m<Number> = Multicast Frame<Group>
    u<Number> = Unicast Frame<Target Port>
 Mixed class throughput measurement is defined in RFC 2432 [Du98].  A
 search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the Mixed Class
 Throughput.  The ratio of unicast to multicast frames MUST remain the
 same when varying the intended load.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Traffic distribution for unicast and multicast traffic
       classes
    o  The ratio of multicast to unicast class traffic
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  Mixed Class Throughput as defined in RFC 2432 [Du98],
       including: Throughput per unicast and multicast traffic
       classes.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 7] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The Mixed Class Throughput results for each test SHOULD be reported
 in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
 per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row SHOULD specify
 the intended load, number of multicast frames offered, number of
 unicast frames offered and measured throughput per class.

4.2. Scaled Group Forwarding Matrix

 Objective:
 To determine Forwarding Rate as a function of tested multicast groups
 for a fixed number of tested DUT/SUT ports.
 Procedure:
 This is an iterative procedure.  The destination test port(s) MUST
 join an initial number of multicast groups on the first iteration.
 All destination test ports configured to receive multicast traffic
 MUST join all configured multicast groups.  The recommended number of
 groups to join on the first iteration is 10 groups.  Multicast
 traffic is subsequently transmitted to all groups joined on this
 iteration and the forwarding rate is measured.
 The number of multicast groups joined by each destination test port
 is then incremented, or scaled, by an additional number of multicast
 groups.  The recommended granularity of additional groups to join per
 iteration is 10, although the tester MAY choose a finer granularity.
 Multicast traffic is subsequently transmitted to all groups joined
 during this iteration and the forwarding rate is measured.
 The total number of multicast groups joined MUST not exceed the
 multicast group capacity of the DUT/SUT.  The Group Capacity (Section
 7.1) results MUST be known prior to running this test.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The total number of multicast groups joined for that
       iteration

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 8] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

    o  Forwarding rate determined for that iteration
 The Scaled Group Forwarding results for each test SHOULD be reported
 in the form of a table with a row representing each iteration of the
 test.  Each row or iteration SHOULD specify the total number of
 groups joined for that iteration, offered load, total number of
 frames transmitted, total number of frames received and the aggregate
 forwarding rate determined for that iteration.

4.3. Aggregated Multicast Throughput

 Objective:
 To determine the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames to
 be forwarded through N destination interfaces of the same multicast
 groups are dropped.
 Procedure:
 Offer multicast traffic at an initial maximum offered load to a fixed
 set of interfaces with a fixed number of groups at a fixed frame
 length for a fixed duration of time.  All destination test ports MUST
 join all specified multicast groups.
 If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and the
 sender will transmit again.  An iterative search algorithm MUST be
 utilized to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero
 frame loss.
 Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the multicast
 traffic, while keeping the set of interfaces, number of multicast
 groups, frame length and test duration fixed, until the maximum rate
 at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined.
 Parameters to be measured MUST include the maximum offered load at
 which no frame loss occurred.  Other offered loads MAY be measured
 for diagnostic purposes.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 9] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  Aggregated Multicast Throughput as defined in RFC 2432
       [Du98]
 The Aggregated Multicast Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
 format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
 the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration SHOULD
 specify offered load, total number of offered frames and the measured
 Aggregated Multicast Throughput.

4.4. Encapsulation/Decapsulation (Tunneling) Throughput

 This sub-section provides the description of tests related to the
 determination of throughput measurements when a DUT/SUT or a set of
 DUTs are acting as tunnel endpoints.
 For this specific testing scenario, encapsulation or tunneling refers
 to a packet that contains an unsupported protocol feature in a format
 that is supported by the DUT/SUT.

4.4.1. Encapsulation Throughput

 Objective:
 To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one ingress
 interface of a DUT/SUT are encapsulated and correctly forwarded on
 one or more egress interfaces of the DUT/SUT without loss.
 Procedure:
   Source              DUT/SUT                Destination
  Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
 +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
 |         |        |           |             |         |
 |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
 |         |        |           |             |         |
 |         |------->|Ingress    |             |         |
 |         |        |           |             |         |
 |         |        |     Egress|--(Tunnel)-->|         |
 |         |        |           |             |         |
 +---------+        +-----------+             +---------+
                       Figure 3

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 10] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Figure 3 shows the setup for testing the encapsulation throughput of
 the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between each egress
 interface of the DUT/SUT and a destination test port.  Non-
 Encapsulated multicast traffic will then be offered by the source
 test port, encapsulated by the DUT/SUT and forwarded to the
 destination test port(s).
 The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across each
 egress interface will consist of either:
    a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
       groups OR
    b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
       address groups.
 The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
 DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  In
 addition, it is RECOMMENDED to test with the same number of tunnels
 on each egress interface.  All destination test ports MUST join all
 multicast group addresses offered by the source test port.  Each
 egress interface MUST be configured with the same MTU.
 Note: when offering large frames sizes, the encapsulation process may
 require the DUT/SUT to fragment the IP datagrams prior to being
 forwarded on the egress interface.  It is RECOMMENDED to limit the
 offered frame size such that no fragmentation is required by the
 DUT/SUT.
 A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the encapsulation
 throughput as defined in [Du98].
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
    o  Originating un-encapsulated frame size
    o  Number of tunnels per egress interface
    o  Number of multicast groups per tunnel
    o  Encapsulation algorithm or format used to tunnel the
       packets

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 11] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  Measured Encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC 2432
       [Du98]
    o  Encapsulated frame size
 The Encapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the form of
 a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows for each
 originating un-encapsulated frame size.  Each row or iteration SHOULD
 specify the offered load, encapsulation method, encapsulated frame
 size, total number of offered frames, and the encapsulation
 throughput.

4.4.2. Decapsulation Throughput

 Objective:
 To determine the maximum rate at which frames offered to one ingress
 interface of a DUT/SUT are decapsulated and correctly forwarded by
 the DUT/SUT on one or more egress interfaces without loss.
 Procedure:
   Source                  DUT/SUT            Destination
  Test Port                                   Test Port(s)
 +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
 |         |             |           |        |         |
 |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
 |         |             |           |        |         |
 |         |--(Tunnel)-->|Ingress    |        |         |
 |         |             |           |        |         |
 |         |             |     Egress|------->|         |
 |         |             |           |        |         |
 +---------+             +-----------+        +---------+
                           Figure 4
 Figure 4 shows the setup for testing the decapsulation throughput of
 the DUT/SUT.  One or more tunnels are created between the source test
 port and the DUT/SUT.  Encapsulated multicast traffic will then be
 offered by the source test port, decapsulated by the DUT/SUT and
 forwarded to the destination test port(s).

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 12] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across the
 ingress interface will consist of either:
    a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
       groups OR
    b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
       address groups.
 The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
 DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  All
 destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
 offered by the source test port.  Each egress interface MUST be
 configured with the same MTU.
 A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the decapsulation
 throughput as defined in [Du98].
 When making performance comparisons between the encapsulation and
 decapsulation process of the DUT/SUT, the offered frame sizes SHOULD
 reflect the encapsulated frame sizes reported in the encapsulation
 test (See section 4.4.1) in place of those noted in section 3.1.3.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Originating encapsulation algorithm or format used to
       tunnel the packets
    o  Originating encapsulated frame size
    o  Number of tunnels
    o  Number of multicast groups per tunnel
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  Measured Decapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC 2432
       [Du98]
    o  Decapsulated frame size
 The Decapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the format
 of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows for each
 originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or iteration SHOULD
 specify the offered load, decapsulated frame size, total number of
 offered frames and the decapsulation throughput.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 13] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

4.4.3. Re-encapsulation Throughput

 Objective:
 To determine the maximum rate at which frames of one encapsulated
 format offered to one ingress interface of a DUT/SUT are converted to
 another encapsulated format and correctly forwarded by the DUT/SUT on
 one or more egress interfaces without loss.
 Procedure:
   Source                DUT/SUT             Destination
  Test Port                                  Test Port(s)
 +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
 |         |           |         |           |         |
 |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
 |         |           |         |           |         |
 |         |-(Tunnel)->|Ingress  |           |         |
 |         |           |         |           |         |
 |         |           |   Egress|-(Tunnel)->|         |
 |         |           |         |           |         |
 +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
                        Figure 5
 Figure 5 shows the setup for testing the Re-encapsulation throughput
 of the DUT/SUT.  The source test port will offer encapsulated traffic
 of one type to the DUT/SUT, which has been configured to re-
 encapsulate the offered frames using a different encapsulation
 format.  The DUT/SUT will then forward the re-encapsulated frames to
 the destination test port(s).
 The DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the traffic across the
 ingress and each egress interface will consist of either:
    a) A single tunnel encapsulating one or more multicast address
       groups OR
    b) Multiple tunnels, each encapsulating one or more multicast
       address groups.
 The number of multicast groups per tunnel MUST be the same when the
 DUT/SUT is configured in a multiple tunnel configuration.  In
 addition, the DUT/SUT SHOULD be configured such that the number of
 tunnels on the ingress and each egress interface are the same.  All
 destination test ports MUST join all multicast group addresses
 offered by the source test port.  Each egress interface MUST be
 configured with the same MTU.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 14] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Note that when offering large frames sizes, the encapsulation process
 may require the DUT/SUT to fragment the IP datagrams prior to being
 forwarded on the egress interface.  It is RECOMMENDED to limit the
 offered frame sizes, such that no fragmentation is required by the
 DUT/SUT.
 A search algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the re-encapsulation
 throughput as defined in [Du98].
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  MTU size of DUT/SUT interfaces
    o  Originating encapsulation algorithm or format used to
       tunnel the packets
    o  Re-encapsulation algorithm or format used to tunnel the
       packets
    o  Originating encapsulated frame size
    o  Number of tunnels per interface
    o  Number of multicast groups per tunnel
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  Measured Re-encapsulated Throughput as defined in RFC 2432
       [Du98]
    o  Re-encapsulated frame size
 The Re-encapsulated Throughput results SHOULD be reported in the
 format of a table and specific to this test there SHOULD be rows for
 each originating encapsulated frame size.  Each row or iteration
 SHOULD specify the offered load, Re-encapsulated frame size, total
 number of offered frames, and the Re-encapsulated Throughput.

5. Forwarding Latency

 This section presents methodologies relating to the characterization
 of the forwarding latency of a DUT/SUT in a multicast environment.
 It extends the concept of latency characterization presented in RFC
 2544.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 15] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The offered load accompanying the latency-measured packet can affect
 the DUT/SUT packet buffering, which may subsequently impact measured
 packet latency.  This SHOULD be a consideration when selecting the
 intended load for the described methodologies below.
 RFC 1242 and RFC 2544 draw a distinction between device types: "store
 and forward" and "bit-forwarding."  Each type impacts how latency is
 collected and subsequently presented.  See the related RFCs for more
 information.

5.1. Multicast Latency

 Objective:
 To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single,
 multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple, egress
 multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
 metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432 [Du98].
 The procedures below draw from the collection methodology for latency
 in RFC 2544 [Br96].  The methodology addresses two topological
 scenarios: one for a single device (DUT) characterization; a second
 scenario is presented or multiple device (SUT) characterization.
 Procedure:
 If the test trial is to characterize latency across a single Device
 Under Test (DUT), an example test topology might take the form of
 Figure 1 in section 3.  That is, a single DUT with one ingress
 interface receiving the multicast test traffic from frame-
 transmitting component of the test apparatus and n egress interfaces
 on the same DUT forwarding the multicast test traffic back to the
 frame-receiving component of the test apparatus.  Note that n
 reflects the number of TESTED egress interfaces on the DUT actually
 expected to forward the test traffic (as opposed to configured but
 untested, non-forwarding interfaces, for example).
 If the multicast latencies are to be taken across multiple devices
 forming a System Under Test (SUT), an example test topology might
 take the form of Figure 2 in section 3.
 The trial duration SHOULD be 120 seconds to be consistent with RFC
 2544 [Br96].  The nature of the latency measurement, "store and
 forward" or "bit forwarding", MUST be associated with the related
 test trial(s) and disclosed in the results report.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 16] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 A test traffic stream is presented to the DUT.  It is RECOMMENDED to
 offer traffic at the measured aggregated multicast throughput rate
 (Section 4.3).  At the mid-point of the trial's duration, the test
 apparatus MUST inject a uniquely identifiable ("tagged") frame into
 the test traffic frames being presented.  This tagged frame will be
 the basis for the latency measurements.  By "uniquely identifiable",
 it is meant that the test apparatus MUST be able to discern the
 "tagged" frame from the other frames comprising the test traffic set.
 A frame generation timestamp, Timestamp A, reflecting the completion
 of the transmission of the tagged frame by the test apparatus, MUST
 be determined.
 The test apparatus will monitor frames from the DUT's tested egress
 interface(s) for the expected tagged frame(s) and MUST record the
 time of the successful detection of a tagged frame from a tested
 egress interface with a timestamp, Timestamp B.  A set of Timestamp B
 values MUST be collected for all tested egress interfaces of the
 DUT/SUT.  See RFC 1242 [Br91] for additional discussion regarding
 store and forward devices and bit forwarding devices.
 A trial MUST be considered INVALID should any of the following
 conditions occur in the collection of the trial data:
    o  Unexpected differences between Intended Load and Offered
       Load or unexpected differences between Offered Load and the
       resulting Forwarding Rate(s) on the DUT/SUT egress ports.
    o  Forwarded test frames improperly formed or frame header
       fields improperly manipulated.
    o  Failure to forward required tagged frame(s) on all expected
       egress interfaces.
    o  Reception of tagged frames by the test apparatus more than
       5 seconds after the cessation of test traffic by the source
       test port.
 The set of latency measurements, M, composed from each latency
 measurement taken from every ingress/tested egress interface pairing
 MUST be determined from a valid test trial:
    M = { (Timestamp B(E0) - Timestamp A),
          (Timestamp B(E1) - Timestamp A), ...
          (Timestamp B(En) - Timestamp A) }
 where (E0 ... En) represents the range of all tested egress
 interfaces and Timestamp B represents a tagged frame detection event
 for a given DUT/SUT tested egress interface.
 A more continuous profile MAY be built from a series of individual
 measurements.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 17] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Offered load
    o  Total number of multicast groups
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The set of all latencies with respective time units related
       to the tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT
       interface.
 The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
 sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
 The results MAY be offered in a tabular format and should preserve
 the relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface for each
 multicast group to assist in trending across multiple trials.

5.2. Min/Max Multicast Latency

 Objective:
 To determine the difference between the maximum latency measurement
 and the minimum latency measurement from a collected set of latencies
 produced by the Multicast Latency benchmark.
 Procedure:
 Collect a set of multicast latency measurements over a single test
 duration, as prescribed in section 5.1.  This will produce a set of
 multicast latencies, M, where M is composed of individual forwarding
 latencies between DUT frame ingress and DUT frame egress port pairs.
 E.g.:
    M = {L(I,E1),L(I,E2), ..., L(I,En)}
 where L is the latency between a tested ingress interface, I, of the
 DUT, and Ex a specific, tested multicast egress interface of the DUT.
 E1 through En are unique egress interfaces on the DUT.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 18] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 From the collected multicast latency measurements in set M, identify
 MAX(M), where MAX is a function that yields the largest latency value
 from set M.
 Identify MIN(M), when MIN is a function that yields the smallest
 latency value from set M.
 The Max/Min value is determined from the following formula:
    Result = MAX(M) - MIN(M)
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Offered load
    o  Total number of multicast groups
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The Max/Min value
 The following results SHOULD be reflected in the test report:
    o  The set of all latencies with respective time units related
       to the tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT
       interface.
 The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
 sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
 The results MAY be offered in a tabular format and should preserve
 the relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface for each
 multicast group.

6. Overhead

 This section presents methodology relating to the characterization of
 the overhead delays associated with explicit operations found in
 multicast environments.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 19] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

6.1. Group Join Delay

 Objective:
 To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start forwarding
 multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP group membership
 report has been issued to the DUT/SUT.
 Procedure:
 The Multicast Group Join Delay measurement may be influenced by the
 state of the Multicast Forwarding Database <MFDB> of the DUT/SUT. The
 states of the MFDB may be described as follows:
    o  State 0, where the MFDB does not contain the specified
       multicast group address.  In this state, the delay measurement
       includes the time the DUT/SUT requires to add the address to
       the MFDB and begin forwarding.   Delay measured from State 0
       provides information about how the DUT/SUT is able to add new
       addresses into MFDB.
    o  State 1, where the MFDB does contain the specified multicast
       group address.  In this state, the delay measurement includes
       the time the DUT/SUT requires to update the MFDB with the
       newly joined node<s> and begin forwarding to the new node<s>
       plus packet replication time.  Delay measured from State 1
       provides information about how well the DUT/SUT is able to
       update the MFDB for new nodes while transmitting packets to
       other nodes for the same IP multicast address.  Examples
       include adding a new user to an event that is being promoted
       via multicast packets.
 The methodology for the Multicast Group Join Delay measurement
 provides two alternate methods, based on the state of the MFDB, to
 measure the delay metric.  The methods MAY be used independently or
 in conjunction to provide meaningful insight into the DUT/SUT ability
 to manage the MFDB.
 Users MAY elect to use either method to determine the Multicast Group
 Join Delay; however the collection method MUST be specified as part
 of the reporting format.
 In order to minimize the variation in delay calculations as well as
 minimize burden on the DUT/SUT, the test SHOULD be performed with one
 multicast group.  In addition, all destination test ports MUST join
 the specified multicast group offered to the ingress interface of the
 DUT/SUT.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 20] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Method A:
 Method A assumes that the Multicast Forwarding Database <MFDB> of the
 DUT/SUT does not contain or has not learned the specified multicast
 group address; specifically, the MFDB MUST be in State 0. In this
 scenario, the metric represents the time the DUT/SUT takes to add the
 multicast address to the MFDB and begin forwarding the multicast
 packet.  Only one ingress and one egress MUST be used to determine
 this metric.
 Prior to sending any IGMP Group Membership Reports used to calculate
 the Multicast Group Join Delay, it MUST be verified through
 externally observable means that the destination test port is not
 currently a member of the specified multicast group.  In addition, it
 MUST be verified through externally observable means that the MFDB of
 the DUT/SUT does not contain the specified multicast address.
 Method B:
 Method B assumes that the MFDB of the DUT/SUT does contain the
 specified multicast group address; specifically, the MFDB MUST be in
 State 1.  In this scenario, the metric represents the time the
 DUT/SUT takes to update the MFDB with the additional nodes and their
 corresponding interfaces and to begin forwarding the multicast
 packet.  One or more egress ports MAY be used to determine this
 metric.
 Prior to sending any IGMP Group Membership Reports used to calculate
 the Group Join Delay, it MUST be verified through externally
 observable means that the MFDB contains the specified multicast group
 address.  A single un-instrumented test port MUST be used to join the
 specified multicast group address prior to sending any test traffic.
 This port will be used only for insuring that the MFDB has been
 populated with the specified multicast group address and can
 successfully forward traffic to the un-instrumented port.
 Join Delay Calculation
 Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for the specified
 multicast group address MUST be offered to the ingress interface
 prior to the DUT/SUT receiving any IGMP Group Membership Report
 messages.  It is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured
 aggregated multicast throughput rate (Section 4.3).
 After the multicast traffic has been started, the destination test
 port (See Figure 1) MUST send one IGMP Group Membership Report for
 the specified multicast group.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 21] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The join delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Group
 Membership message is sent (timestamp A) and the first frame of the
 multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
 (timestamp B).
    Group Join delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
 Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP group
 membership report is sent from the destination test port; timestamp B
 MUST be the time the first bit of the first valid multicast frame is
 forwarded on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Offered load to ingress interface
    o  Method used to measure the join delay metric
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The group join delay time in microseconds per egress
       interface(s)
 The Group Join Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
 form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
 the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
 specify the group join delay time per egress interface for that
 iteration.

6.2. Group Leave Delay

 Objective:
 To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to cease forwarding
 multicast frames after a corresponding IGMP Leave Group message has
 been successfully offered to the DUT/SUT.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 22] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Procedure:
 In order to minimize the variation in delay calculations as well as
 minimize burden on the DUT/SUT, the test SHOULD be performed with one
 multicast group.  In addition, all destination test ports MUST join
 the specified multicast group offered to the ingress interface of the
 DUT/SUT.
 Prior to sending any IGMP Leave Group messages used to calculate the
 group leave delay, it MUST be verified through externally observable
 means that the destination test ports are currently members of the
 specified multicast group.  If any of the egress interfaces do not
 forward validation multicast frames then the test is invalid.
 Once verification is complete, multicast traffic for the specified
 multicast group address MUST be offered to the ingress interface
 prior to receipt or processing of any IGMP Leave Group messages. It
 is RECOMMENDED to offer traffic at the measured aggregated multicast
 throughput rate (Section 4.3).
 After the multicast traffic has been started, each destination test
 port (See Figure 1) MUST send one IGMP Leave Group message for the
 specified multicast group.
 The leave delay is the difference in time from when the IGMP Leave
 Group message is sent (timestamp A) and the last frame of the
 multicast group is forwarded to a receiving egress interface
 (timestamp B).
         Group Leave delay time = timestamp B - timestamp A
 Timestamp A MUST be the time the last bit of the IGMP Leave Group
 message is sent from the destination test port; timestamp B MUST be
 the time the last bit of the last valid multicast frame is forwarded
 on the egress interface of the DUT/SUT.
 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  IGMP version
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Offered load to ingress interface

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 23] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The group leave delay time in microseconds per egress
       interface(s)
 The Group Leave Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
 form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
 the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
 specify the group leave delay time per egress interface for that
 iteration.

7. Capacity

 This section offers a procedure relating to the identification of
 multicast group limits of a DUT/SUT.

7.1. Multicast Group Capacity

 Objective:
 To determine the maximum number of multicast groups a DUT/SUT can
 support while maintaining the ability to forward multicast frames to
 all multicast groups registered to that DUT/SUT.
 Procedure:
 One or more destination test ports of DUT/SUT will join an initial
 number of multicast groups.
 After a minimum delay as measured by section 6.1, the source test
 ports MUST transmit to each group at a specified offered load.
 If at least one frame for each multicast group is forwarded properly
 by the DUT/SUT on each participating egress interface, the iteration
 is said to pass at the current capacity.
 For each successful iteration, each destination test port will join
 an additional user-defined number of multicast groups and the test
 repeats.  The test stops iterating when one or more of the egress
 interfaces fails to forward traffic on one or more of the configured
 multicast groups.
 Once the iteration fails, the last successful iteration is the stated
 Maximum Group Capacity result.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 24] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 Reporting Format:
 The following configuration parameters MUST be reflected in the test
 report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  IGMP version
    o  Offered load
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The total number of multicast group addresses that were
       successfully forwarded through the DUT/SUT
 The Multicast Group Capacity results for each test SHOULD be reported
 in the form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes
 per the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration
 SHOULD specify the number of multicast groups joined per destination
 interface, number of frames transmitted and number of frames received
 for that iteration.

8. Interaction

 Network forwarding devices are generally required to provide more
 functionality than just the forwarding of traffic.  Moreover,
 network-forwarding devices may be asked to provide those functions in
 a variety of environments.  This section offers procedures to assist
 in the characterization of DUT/SUT behavior in consideration of
 potentially interacting factors.

8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency

 Objective:
 To produce a set of multicast latency measurements from a single
 multicast ingress interface of a DUT/SUT through multiple egress
 multicast interfaces of that same DUT/SUT as provided for by the
 metric "Multicast Latency" in RFC 2432 [Du98] while forwarding meshed
 unicast traffic.
 Procedure:
 The Multicast Latency metrics can be influenced by forcing the
 DUT/SUT to perform extra processing of packets while multicast class
 traffic is being forwarded for latency measurements.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 25] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The Burdened Forwarding Multicast Latency test MUST follow the
 described setup for the Multicast Latency test in Section 5.1.  In
 addition, another set of test ports MUST be used to burden the
 DUT/SUT (burdening ports).  The burdening ports will be used to
 transmit unicast class traffic to the DUT/SUT in a fully meshed
 traffic distribution as described in RFC 2285 [Ma98].  The DUT/SUT
 MUST learn the appropriate unicast addresses and verified through
 some externally observable method.
 Perform a baseline measurement of Multicast Latency as described in
 Section 5.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, start
 transmitting the unicast class traffic at a user-specified offered
 load on the set of burdening ports and rerun the Multicast Latency
 test.  The offered load to the ingress port MUST be the same as was
 used in the baseline measurement.
 Reporting Format:
 Similar to Section 5.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
 be reflected in the test report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  Test duration
    o  IGMP version
    o  Offered load to ingress interface
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Offered load to burdening ports
    o  Total number of burdening ports
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The set of all latencies related to the tested ingress and
       each tested egress DUT/SUT interface for both the baseline
       and burdened response.
 The time units of the presented latency MUST be uniform and with
 sufficient precision for the medium or media being tested.
 The latency results for each test SHOULD be reported in the form of a
 table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per the
 recommended frame sizes in section 3.1.3, and SHOULD preserve the
 relationship of latency to ingress/egress interface(s) to assist in
 trending across multiple trials.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 26] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

8.2. Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay

 Objective:
 To determine the time duration it takes a DUT/SUT to start forwarding
 multicast frames from the time a successful IGMP Group Membership
 Report has been issued to the DUT/SUT while forwarding meshed unicast
 traffic.
 Procedure:
 The Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay test MUST follow the
 described setup for the Group Join Delay test in Section 6.1.  In
 addition, another set of test ports MUST be used to burden the
 DUT/SUT (burdening ports).  The burdening ports will be used to
 transmit unicast class traffic to the DUT/SUT in a fully meshed
 traffic pattern as described in RFC 2285 [Ma98].  The DUT/SUT MUST
 learn the appropriate unicast addresses and verified through some
 externally observable method.
 Perform a baseline measurement of Group Join Delay as described in
 Section 6.1.  After the baseline measurement is obtained, start
 transmitting the unicast class traffic at a user-specified offered
 load on the set of burdening ports and rerun the Group Join Delay
 test.  The offered load to the ingress port MUST be the same as was
 used in the baseline measurement.
 Reporting Format:
 Similar to Section 6.1, the following configuration parameters MUST
 be reflected in the test report:
    o  Frame size(s)
    o  Number of tested egress interfaces on the DUT/SUT
    o  IGMP version
    o  Offered load to ingress interface
    o  Total number of multicast groups
    o  Offered load to burdening ports
    o  Total number of burdening ports
    o  Method used to measure the join delay metric
 The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
    o  The group join delay time in microseconds per egress
       interface(s) for both the baseline and burdened response.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 27] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 The Group Join Delay results for each test MAY be reported in the
 form of a table, with a row for each of the tested frame sizes per
 the recommendations in section 3.1.3.  Each row or iteration MAY
 specify the group join delay time per egress interface, number of
 frames transmitted and number of frames received for that iteration.

9. Security Considerations

 As this document is solely for the purpose of providing metric
 methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's
 implementation, there are no security considerations associated with
 this document specifically.  Results from these methodologies may
 identify a performance capability or limit of a device or system in a
 particular test context.  However, such results might not be
 representative of the tested entity in an operational network.

10. Acknowledgements

 The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF and
 particularly Kevin Dubray, Juniper Networks, are to be thanked for
 the many suggestions they collectively made to help complete this
 document.

11. Contributions

 The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
 their help and participation of the compilation of this document:
 Hardev Soor, Ixia, and Ralph Daniels, Spirent Communications, both
 who made significant contributions to the earlier versions of this
 document.  In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the
 members of the task team who helped bring this document to fruition:
 Michele Bustos, Tony De La Rosa, David Newman and Jerry Perser.

12. References

12.1. Normative References

 [Br91]   Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
          Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
 [Br96]   Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
          Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
 [Br97]   Bradner, S. "Use of Keywords in RFCs to Reflect Requirement
          Levels, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [Du98]   Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC
          2432, October 1998.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 28] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

 [IANA1]  IANA multicast address assignments,
          http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
 [Ma98]   Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
          Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
 [Me98]   Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
          RFC 2365, July 1998.

12.2. Informative References

 [Ca02]   Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
          Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
          3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
 [De89]   Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5,
          RFC 1112, August 1989.
 [Fe97]   Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2",
          RFC 2236, November 1997.
 [Hu95]   Huitema, C., "Routing in the Internet", Prentice-Hall, 1995.
 [Ka98]   Kosiur, D., "IP Multicasting: the Complete Guide to
          Interactive Corporate Networks", John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
          1998.
 [Mt98]   Maufer, T., "Deploying IP Multicast in the Enterprise",
          Prentice-Hall, 1998.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 29] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

13. Authors' Addresses

 Debra Stopp
 Ixia
 26601 W. Agoura Rd.
 Calabasas, CA  91302
 USA
 Phone: + 1 818 871 1800
 EMail: debby@ixiacom.com
 Brooks Hickman
 Spirent Communications
 26750 Agoura Rd.
 Calabasas, CA  91302
 USA
 Phone: + 1 818 676 2412
 EMail: brooks.hickman@spirentcom.com

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 30] RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking October 2004

14. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
 IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
 be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Stopp & Hickman Informational [Page 31]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3918.txt · Last modified: 2004/10/01 22:58 (external edit)