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:rfc5695

Network Working Group A. Akhter Request for Comments: 5695 R. Asati Category: Informational C. Pignataro

                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                         November 2009
       MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows

Abstract

 This document describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking
 of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) forwarding devices, limited
 to the most common MPLS packet forwarding scenarios and delay
 measurements for each, considering IP flows.  It builds upon the
 tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 1242, and other IETF Benchmarking
 Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This document seeks to
 extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm.

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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the 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

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 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.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. Document Scope ..................................................3
 3. Key Words To Reflect Requirements ...............................4
 4. Test Methodology ................................................4
    4.1. Test Considerations ........................................5
         4.1.1. Abbreviations Used ..................................5
         4.1.2. IGP Support .........................................6
         4.1.3. Label Distribution Support ..........................6
         4.1.4. Frame Formats .......................................7
         4.1.5. Frame Sizes .........................................9
         4.1.6. Time-to-Live (TTL) or Hop Limit ....................12
         4.1.7. Trial Duration .....................................12
         4.1.8. Traffic Verification ...............................12
         4.1.9. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State ......13
 5. Reporting Format ...............................................13
 6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests .............................14
    6.1. Throughput ................................................15
         6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Push .....................16
         6.1.2. Throughput for MPLS Label Swap .....................17
         6.1.3. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (Unlabeled) ..........18
         6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (Aggregate) ..........19
         6.1.5. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (PHP) ................20
    6.2. Latency Measurement .......................................21
    6.3. Frame-Loss Rate (FLR) Measurement .........................22
    6.4. System Recovery ...........................................23
    6.5. Reset .....................................................23
 7. Security Considerations ........................................25
 8. Acknowledgement ................................................25
 9. References .....................................................25
    9.1. Normative References ......................................25
    9.2. Informative References ....................................26

1. Introduction

 Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the use of
 MPLS as a forwarding architecture in new and existing network
 designs.  MPLS, defined in [RFC3031], is a foundation technology and
 the basis for many advanced technologies such as Layer 3 MPLS VPNs,
 Layer 2 MPLS VPNs, and MPLS Traffic Engineering.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast
 the foundational MPLS packet forwarding capabilities of network
 devices.  This document proposes a methodology using common criteria
 (such as throughput, latency, frame-loss rate, system recovery,
 reset, etc.) to evaluate MPLS forwarding of any implementation.

2. Document Scope

 The benchmarking methodology principles outlined in RFC 2544
 [RFC2544] are independent of forwarding techniques; however, they
 don't fully address MPLS benchmarking.  The workload on network
 forwarding device resources that MPLS forwarding places is different
 from that of IP forwarding; therefore, MPLS forwarding benchmarking
 specifics are desired.
 The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to
 the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices.  The methods described
 are limited in scope to the most common MPLS packet forwarding
 scenarios and corresponding performance measurements in a laboratory
 setting.  It builds upon the tenets set forth in RFC 2544 [RFC2544],
 RFC 1242 [RFC1242], and other IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working
 Group (BMWG) efforts.  In other words, this document is not a
 replacement for, but a complement to, RFC 2544.
 This document focuses on the MPLS label stack [RFC3032] that has only
 one entry, as it is the fundamental of MPLS forwarding.  It is
 expected that future documents may cover the benchmarking of MPLS
 applications such as Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) [RFC4364], Layer 2 VPN
 (L2VPN) [RFC4664], Fast ReRoute [RFC4090], etc., which require more
 than one entry in the MPLS label stack.
 Moreover, to address the majority of current deployments' needs, this
 document focuses on having IP packets as the MPLS payload.  In other
 words, label distribution for IP Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
 [RFC3031] is prescribed (see Section 4.1.3) by this document.  It is
 expected that future documents may focus on having non-IP packets as
 the MPLS payload.
 Note that the presence of an MPLS label stack does not require the
 length of MPLS payload (which is an IP packet, per this document) to
 be changed; hence, the effective maximum size of a frame can increase
 by Z octets (where Z = 4 x number of label stack entries), as
 observed in current deployments.  This document focuses on
 benchmarking such a scenario.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

3. Key Words To Reflect Requirements

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

4. Test Methodology

 The set of methodologies described in this document will use the
 topology described in this section.  An effort has been made to
 exclude superfluous equipment needs such that each test can be
 carried out with a minimal number of devices.  Figure 1 illustrates
 the sample topology in which the Device Under Test (DUT) is connected
 to the test ports on the test tool in accord with Figure 1 of RFC
 2544.
                        +-----------------+
        +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
        | Test    |     |                 |     | Test    |
        | Port A1 +-----+ DA1         DB1 +-----+ Port B1 |
        +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
        +---------+     |       DUT       |     +---------+
        | Test    |     |                 |     | Test    |
        | Port A2 +-----+ DA2         DB2 +-----+ Port B2 |
        +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
             ...        | ...         ... |        ...
        +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
        | Test    |     |                 |     | Test    |
        | Port Ap +-----+ DAp         DBp +-----+ Port Bp |
        +---------+     +-----------------+     +---------+
        Figure 1: Topology for MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking
 A represents a Tx-side Module of the test tool, whereas B represents
 an Rx-side Module of the same test tool.  Of course, the suffixed
 numbers (1, 2, ..., p) represent ports on a Module.
 Similarly, DA represents an Rx-side Module of the DUT, whereas DB
 represents a Tx-side Module.  The suffixed numbers (1, 2, ..., p)
 represent ports on a Module.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 p = the number of {DA, DB} pair ports on the DUT.  It is determined
 by the maximum unidirectional forwarding throughput of the DUT and
 the load capacity of the port media (e.g., interface) connecting the
 DUT to the test tool.
 For example, if the DUT's maximum forwarding throughput is 100 frames
 per second (fps) and the load capacity of the port media (e.g.,
 interface) is 50 fps, then p >= 2 is needed to sufficiently test the
 maximum frame forwarding.
 The exact throughput is a measured quantity obtained through testing.
 Throughput may vary depending on the number of ports used and other
 factors.  The number of ports (p) used SHOULD be reported.  Please
 see "Test Setup" in Section 6.  Following Figure 1 from Section 6 of
 RFC 2544 is recommended.

4.1. Test Considerations

 This methodology assumes a full-duplex, uniform medium topology.  The
 medium used MUST be reported in each test result.  Issues regarding
 mixed transmission media, speed mismatches, media header differences,
 etc., are not under consideration.  Traffic affecting features such
 as Flow control, Quality of Service (QoS), Graceful Restart, etc.
 MUST be disabled, unless explicitly requested in the test case.
 Additionally, any non-essential traffic MUST also be avoided.

4.1.1. Abbreviations Used

 The terms used in this document remain consistent with those defined
 in "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices" RFC
 1242 [RFC1242].  This terminology SHOULD be consulted before using or
 applying the recommendations of this document.
 Please refer to Figure 1 for a topology view of the network.  The
 following abbreviations are used in this document:
 M  := Module on a device (i.e., Line-Card or Slot; could be A or B)
 p  := Port number (i.e., port on the Module; could be 1, 2, etc.)
 RN := Remote Network (i.e., network that is reachable via a port of a
 module; could be B1RN1 or B2RN5 to mean the first network reachable
 via port 1 of module B, e.g., B1, or the fifth network reachable via
 port 2 of module B, etc.).  RN is considered to be the IP Prefix FEC
 from the MPLS perspective.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

4.1.2. IGP Support

 It is RECOMMENDED that all of the ports (A1, DA1, DB1, and A2) on the
 DUT and test tool support a dynamic Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
 for routing such as IS-IS, OSPF, RIP, etc.  Furthermore, there are
 testing considerations in this document that the device be able to
 provide a stable control plane during heavy forwarding workloads.  In
 particular, the procedures defined in Section 11.3 of RFC 2544 must
 be followed.  This is to ensure that control plane instability during
 load conditions is not the contributing factor towards frame
 forwarding performance.
 The route distribution method (OSPF, IS-IS, Enhanced Interior Gateway
 Routing Protocol (EIGRP), RIP, Static, etc.), if used, MUST be
 reported.  Furthermore, if any specific configuration is used to
 maintain control plane stability during the test (i.e., Control Plane
 Protection, Control Plane Rate Limiting, etc.), then it MUST also be
 reported.

4.1.3. Label Distribution Support

 The DUT and test tool must support at least one protocol for
 exchanging MPLS label/FEC bindings for Prefix Forwarding Equivalence
 Class (FEC) [RFC3031].  The DUT and test tool MUST be capable of
 learning and advertising MPLS label/FEC bindings via the chosen
 protocol(s) and use them during packet forwarding all the time
 (including when the label/FEC bindings change).  The most commonly
 used protocols are Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036],
 Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
 [RFC3209], and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC3107].
 All of the ports (A1, DA1, DB1, B1, etc.) either on the DUT or the
 test tool used in the testing SHOULD support LDP, RSVP-TE, and BGP
 for IPv4 or IPv6 Prefix Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs).
 Static labels SHOULD NOT be used to establish the MPLS label switched
 paths (LSPs), unless specified explicitly by the test case.
 This is because the use of a static label is quite uncommon in the
 production networks.
 The IPv4 and IPv6 Explicit NULL labels (label values 0 and 2) are
 sometimes used to identify the payload of an MPLS packet on an LSP
 [RFC3032].  Explicit NULL labels are not used in the tests described
 in this document because the tests are limited to the use of no more
 than one non-reserved MPLS label in the label stack of all packets
 to, from, or through the DUT.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

4.1.4. Frame Formats

 This section explains the frame formats for IP and MPLS packets
 (Section 4.1.4.1), the usage of IP as the mandatory Layer 3 protocol
 and as the MPLS packet payload (Section 4.1.4.2), change in frame
 format during forwarding (Section 4.1.4.3), and recommended frame
 formats for the MPLS benchmarking (Section 4.1.4.4).

4.1.4.1. Frame Format for IP versus MPLS

 A test frame carrying an IP packet is illustrated in Figure 2 below.
 Note that RFC 2544 [RFC2544] prescribes using such a frame as the
 test frame over the chosen Layer 2 media.
       +---------+--------------+-----------------------+
       | Layer 2 | Layer 3 = IP | Layer 4 = UDP         |
       +---------+--------------+-----------------------+
               Figure 2: Frame Format for IP Packets
 Unlike a test frame carrying an IP packet, a test frame carrying an
 MPLS packet contains an "MPLS label stack" [RFC3032] immediately
 after the Layer 2 header (and before the IP header, if any) as
 illustrated in Figure 3 below.
       +---------+-------+--------------+-----------------------+
       | Layer 2 | MPLS  | Layer 3 = IP | Layer 4 = UDP         |
       +---------+-------+--------------+-----------------------+
              Figure 3: Frame Format for MPLS Packets
 The MPLS label stack is represented as a sequence of "label stack
 entries", where each label stack entry is 4 octets, as illustrated in
 Figure 1 of [RFC3032].  This document requires exactly one entry in
 the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet.
 MPLS label values used in any test case MUST be outside the reserved
 label value (0-15) unless stated otherwise.

4.1.4.2. MPLS Packet Payload

 This document prescribes using an IP packet as the MPLS payload (as
 illustrated in Figure 3 above).  Generically speaking, this document
 mandates the test frame to include IP (either IPv4 or IPv6) as the
 Layer 3 protocol, in accord with Section 8 of [RFC2544] and
 independent of the MPLS label stack presence, for three reasons:

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 1. This enables using IP Prefix Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
    [RFC3031], which is a must for every MPLS network.
 2. This provides the foundation or baseline for the benchmarking of
    various other MPLS applications such as L3VPN, L2VPN, TE-FRR, etc.
 3. This enables leveraging RFC 2544 [RFC2544], which prescribes using
    IP packets with UDP data as the test frames.  (Note that [RFC5180]
    also uses this prescription for IPv6 benchmarking).
 While the usage of non-IP payloads is possible, it requires an MPLS
 application, e.g., L2VPN, whose benchmarking may be covered in
 separate BMWG documents (MPLS L2VPN Benchmarking, for example) in the
 future.  This is also explained in Section 2.

4.1.4.3. Change in Frame Format Due to MPLS Push and Pop

 A frame carrying an IP or MPLS packet may go through any of the three
 MPLS forwarding operations: label push (or LSP Ingress), label swap,
 and label pop (or LSP Egress), as defined in [RFC3031].  It is
 important to understand the change of the frame format from IP to
 MPLS or vice versa depending on the forwarding operation.
 In a label push (or LSP Ingress) operation, the DUT receives a frame
 containing an IP packet and forwards a frame containing an MPLS
 packet if the corresponding forwarding lookup for the IP destination
 points to a label push operation.
 In a label swap operation, the DUT receives a frame containing an
 MPLS packet and forwards a frame containing an MPLS packet if the
 corresponding forwarding lookup for the label value points to a label
 swap operation.
 In a label pop (or LSP Egress) operation, the DUT receives a frame
 containing an MPLS packet and forwards a frame containing an IP
 packet if the corresponding forwarding lookup for the label value
 points to a label pop operation.

4.1.4.4. Frame Formats to Be Used for Benchmarking

 This document prescribes using two test frame formats to
 appropriately test the forwarding operations: (1) Frame format for IP
 and (2) Frame format for MPLS.  Both formats are explained in Section
 4.1.4.1.  Additionally, the format of the test frame may change
 depending on the forwarding operation.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 1. For test cases involving the label push operation, the test tool
    must use the frame format for IP packets (Figure 2) to send the
    test frames to the DUT, and must use the frame format for MPLS
    packets (Figure 3) to receive the test frames from the DUT.
 2. For test cases involving the label swap operation, the test tool
    must use the frame format for MPLS packets (Figure 3) to send the
    test frames to the DUT, and must use the frame format for MPLS
    packets (Figure 3) to receive the test frames from the DUT.
 3. For test cases involving the label pop operation, the test tool
    must use the frame format for MPLS packets (Figure 3) to send the
    test frames to the DUT, and must use the frame format for IP
    packets (Figure 2) to receive the test frames from the DUT.

4.1.5. Frame Sizes

 Two types of port media are commonly deployed: Ethernet and POS
 (Packet Over Synchronous Optical Network).  This section identifies
 the frame sizes that SHOULD be used for each media type, if supported
 by the DUT; Section 4.1.5.1 covers Ethernet and Section 4.1.5.2
 covers POS.
 First, it is important to note the possible increase in frame size
 due to the presence of an MPLS label stack in the frame (as explained
 in Section 4.1.4.3).
 As observed in the current deployments, presence of an MPLS label
 stack in a Layer 2 frame is assumed to be transparent to Layer3=IP,
 which continues to follow the conventional maximum frame payload size
 [RFC3032] (1500 octets for Ethernet, say).  This means that the
 effective maximum frame payload size [RFC3032] of the resulting Layer
 2 frame is Z octets more than the conventional maximum frame payload
 size, where Z = 4 x number of entries in the label stack.
 Hence, to ensure successful delivery of Layer 2 frames carrying MPLS
 packets and realistic benchmarking, it is RECOMMENDED to set the
 media MTU value to the effective maximum frame payload size
 [RFC3032], which equals Z octets + conventional maximum frame payload
 size.  It is expected that such a change in the media MTU value only
 impacts the effective Maximum Frame Payload Size for MPLS packets,
 but not for IP packets.
 Note that this document requires exactly a single entry in the MPLS
 label stack in an MPLS packet.  In other words, the depth of the
 label stack is set to one, e.g., Z = 4 x 1 = 4 octets.  Furthermore,
 in accord with Sections 9 and 9.1 of RFC 2544, this document
 prescribes that each test case is run with different (Layer 2) frame

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 sizes in different trials.  Additionally, results MAY also be
 collected with multiple simultaneous frame sizes (sometimes referred
 to as an Interactive Multimodal Information Extraction (IMIX) to
 simulate real network traffic according to the frame size ordering
 and usage).  There is no standard for mixtures of frame sizes, and
 the results are subject to wide interpretation (see Section 18 of RFC
 2544).  When running trials using multiple simultaneous frame sizes,
 the DUT configuration MUST remain the same.

4.1.5.1. Frame Sizes To Be Used on Ethernet Media

 Ethernet media, in all its types, has become the most commonly
 deployed port media in MPLS networks.  If any test case execution
 (such as the Label Push case) requires the test tool to send (or
 receive) a Layer 2 frame containing an IP packet, then the following
 frame sizes SHOULD be used for benchmarking over Ethernet media: 64,
 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, and 1518 octets.  This is in-line with
 Sections 9 and 9.1 of RFC 2544.  Figure 4 illustrates the header
 sizes for an untagged Ethernet frame containing an IP payload (per
 RFC 2544).
          <----------------64-1518B------------------------>
          <--18B---><-----------46-1500B------------------->
          +---------+---------+----------------------------+
          | Layer 2 | Layer 3 | Layer 4 (and higher)       |
          +---------+---------+----------------------------+
             Figure 4: Frame Size for Label Push Cases
    Note 1: The 64- and 1518-octet frame size represents the minimum
    and maximum length of an untagged Ethernet frame, as per IEEE
    802.3 [IEE8023].  A frame size commonly used in operational
    environments may range from 68 to 1522 octets, which are the
    minimum and maximum lengths of a single VLAN-tagged frame, as per
    IEEE 802.1D [IEE8021].
    Note 2: While jumbo frames are outside the scope of the 802.3 IEEE
    standard, tests SHOULD be executed with the frame sizes that are
    supported by the DUT.  Examples of commonly used jumbo (Ethernet)
    frame sizes are: 4096, 8192, and 9216 octets.
 If any test case execution (such as Label Swap and Label Pop cases)
 requires the test tool to transmit (or receive) a Layer 2 frame
 containing an MPLS packet, then the untagged Layer 2 frame must

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 include an additional 4 octets for the MPLS header, resulting in the
 following frame sizes to be used for benchmarking over Ethernet
 media: 68, 132, 260, 516, 1028, 1284, and 1522 octets.  Figure 5
 illustrates the header sizes for an untagged Ethernet frame
 containing an MPLS packet.
          <------------------68-1522B------------------------------>
          <--18B---><--4B--><-----------46-1500B------------------->
          +---------+-------+---------+----------------------------+
          | Layer 2 | MPLS  | Layer 3 | Layer 4 (and higher)       |
          +---------+-------+---------+----------------------------+
               Figure 5: Frame Size for Label Swap and Pop Cases
    Note: The Media MTU on the link between the test tool and the DUT
    must be changed, if needed, to accommodate the effective maximum
    frame payload size [RFC3032] resulting from adding an MPLS label
    stack to the IP packet.  As clarified in Section 3.1 of RFC 3032,
    most Layer 2 media drivers are capable of sending and receiving
    Layer 2 frames with effective maximum frame payload size.  Many
    vendors also allow the Media MTU to be changed for MPLS, without
    changing it for IP.  The recommended link MTU value for MPLS is Z
    octets more than the conventional maximum frame payload size
    [RFC3032] (for example, the conventional maximum frame payload
    size for Ethernet is 1500 octets).  This document prescribes Z=4
    octets.  If a vendor DUT doesn't allow such an MTU change, then
    the benchmarking cannot be performed for the true maximum frame
    payload size [RFC3032] and this must be reported.

4.1.5.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used on POS Media

 Packet over SONET (POS) media are commonly used for edge uplinks and
 high-bandwidth core links.  POS may use one of various encapsulations
 techniques (such as PPP, High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC), Frame
 Relay, etc.), resulting in the Layer 2 header (~4 octets) being less
 than that of the Ethernet media.  The rest of the frame format
 (illustrated in Figures 2 and 3) remains pretty much unchanged.
 If the MPLS forwarding characterization of POS interfaces on the DUT
 is desired, then the following frame sizes SHOULD be used:
    Label Push test cases:          47, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024,
                                    1280, 1518, 2048, and 4096 octets.
    Label Swap and Pop test cases:  51, 68, 132, 260, 516, 1028,
                                    1284, 1522, 2052, and 4100 octets.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

4.1.6. Time-to-Live (TTL) or Hop Limit

 The TTL value in the frame header MUST be large enough to allow a TTL
 decrement to happen and still be forwarded through the DUT.  The
 aforementioned TTL field may be referring to either the MPLS TTL,
 IPv4 TTL, or IPv6 Hop Limit depending on the exact forwarding
 scenario under evaluation.
 If TTL/Hop Limit decrement, as specified in [RFC3443], is a
 configurable option on the DUT, the setting SHOULD be reported.

4.1.7. Trial Duration

 Unless otherwise specified, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
 no less than 30 seconds when static routing is in place, and no less
 than 200 seconds when a dynamic routing protocol and LDP (default LDP
 holddown timer is 180 seconds) are being used.  If the holddown timer
 default value is changed, then it should be reported and the trial
 duration should still be 20 seconds more than the holddown timer
 value.
 The longer trial time used for dynamic routing protocols is to verify
 that the DUT is able to maintain a stable control plane when the
 data-forwarding plane is under stress.

4.1.8. Traffic Verification

 In all cases, sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
 received on the wrong port, the correct port, or not received at all.
 Specifically, traffic loss (also referred to as frame loss) is
 defined as the traffic (i.e., one or more frames) not received where
 expected (i.e., received on the incorrect port, or received with
 incorrect Layer 2 or above header information, etc.).  In addition,
 the presence or absence of the MPLS label stack, every field value
 inside the label stack, if present, ethertype (0x8847 or 0x8848
 versus 0x0800 or 0x86DD), frame sequencing, and frame check sequence
 (FCS) MUST be verified in the received frame.
 Many test tools may, by default, only verify that they have received
 the embedded signature on the receive side.  However, for MPLS header
 presence verification, some tests will require the MPLS header to be
 pushed while others will require a swap or pop.  Hence, this document
 requires the test tool to verify the MPLS stack depth.  An even
 greater level of verification would be to check if the correct label
 was pushed.  However, some test tools are not capable of checking the
 received label value for correctness.  Test tools SHOULD verify that
 the packets received carry the expected MPLS label.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

4.1.9. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State

 If a test setup utilizes any dynamic protocols for control plane
 signaling (e.g., ARP, PPP (including MPLSCP), OSPF, LDP, etc.), then
 all state for the protocols MUST be pre-established before the test
 case is executed (i.e., packet streams are started).

5. Reporting Format

 For each test case, it is RECOMMENDED that the following variables be
 reported in addition to the specific parameters requested by the test
 case:
    Parameter                        Units or Examples
    Prefix Forwarding Equivalence    IPv4, IPv6, Both
    Class (FEC)
    Label Distribution Protocol      LDP, RSVP-TE, BGP (or
                                     combinations)
    MPLS Forwarding Operation        Push, Swap, Pop
    IGP                              ISIS, OSPF, EIGRP, RIP,
                                     static.
    Throughput                       Frames per second and
                                     bits per second
    Port Media                       GigE (Gigabit Ethernet),
                                     POS, ATM, etc.
    Port Speed                       1 gbps, 100 Mbps, etc.
    Interface Encapsulation          Ethernet, Ethernet
                                     VLAN, PPP, HDLC, etc.
    Frame Size (Section 4.1.5)       Octets
    p (Number of {DA, DB} pair       1,2, etc.
    ports per Figure 1)
 The individual test cases may have additional reporting requirements
 that may refer to other RFCs.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Tests

 MPLS is a different forwarding paradigm from IP.  Unlike IP packets
 and IP forwarding, an MPLS packet may contain more than one MPLS
 header and may go through one of three forwarding operations: push
 (or LSP Ingress), swap, or pop (or LSP Egress), as defined in
 [RFC3031].  Such characteristics desire further granularity in MPLS
 forwarding benchmarking than those described in RFC 2544.  Thus, the
 benchmarking may include, but is not limited to:
    1. Throughput
    2. Latency
    3. Frame-Loss Rate
    4. System Recovery
    5. Reset
    6. MPLS TC (previously known as EXP [RFC5462]) field Operations
       (including explicit-null cases)
    7. Negative Scenarios (TTL expiry, etc.)
    8. Multicast
 However, this document focuses only on the first five categories,
 inline with the spirit of RFC 2544.  All the benchmarking test cases
 described in this document are expected to, at a minimum, follow the
 "Test Setup" and "Test Procedure" below:
 Test Setup
    Referring to Figure 1, a single port (p = 1) on both A and B
    Modules SHOULD be used.  However, if the forwarding throughput of
    the DUT is more than that of the media rate of a single port, then
    additional ports on A and B Modules MUST be enabled as follows: if
    the DUT can be configured with the A and B ports so as to exceed
    the DUT's forwarding throughput without overloading any B ports,
    then those MUST be enabled; if, on the other hand, the DUT's
    forwarding throughput capacity is greater than what can be
    achieved enabling all ports, then all An and Bn ports MUST be
    enabled.  In the case where more than one A and B port is enabled,
    the procedures described in Section 16 of RFC 2544 must be

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

    followed to accommodate the multi-port scenario.  The frame
    formats transmitted and received must be in accord with Sections
    4.1.4.3 and 4.1.4.4, and frame sizes must be in accord with
    Section 4.1.5.
    Note: The test tool must be configured not to advertise a prefix
    or FEC to the DUT on more than one port.  In other words, the DUT
    must associate a FEC with one and only one DB port.  The Equal
    Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) behavior in MPLS networks uses heuristics
    [RFC4928]; hence, the usage of ECMP is NOT permitted by this
    document to ensure the deterministic forwarding behavior during
    benchmarking.
 Test Procedure
    In accord with Section 26 of RFC 2544 [RFC2544], the traffic is
    sent from test tool port(s) Ap to the DUT at a constant load for a
    fixed-time interval, and is received from the DUT on test tool
    port(s) Bp.  As described in Section 4.1.4.3, the frame may
    contain either an IP packet or an MPLS packet depending on the
    test case need.  Furthermore, the IP packet must be either an IPv4
    or IPv6 packet, depending on whether the MPLS benchmarking is done
    for IPv4 or IPv6.
    If any frame loss is detected, then a new iteration is needed
    where the offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit
    again.  An iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine
    the maximum offered frame rate with a zero frame loss.
    This maximum offered frame rate that results in zero frame loss
    through the DUT is defined as the Throughput in Section 3.17 of
    [RFC1242] for that test case.  Informally, this rate is referred
    to as the No-Drop Rate (NDR).
    Each iteration should involve varying the offered load of the
    traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number
    of ports, number of addresses, frame size, etc.) constant, until
    the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped
    is determined.

6.1. Throughput

 This section contains the description of the tests that are related
 to the characterization of a DUT's MPLS traffic forwarding.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Push

 Objective
    To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label push
    or LSP Ingress forwarding operation (i.e., IP to MPLS).
 Test Setup
    In addition to the "Test Setup" described in Section 6, the test
    tool must advertise the IP prefix(es), i.e., RNx (using a routing
    protocol as per Section 4.1.2) and associated MPLS label-FEC
    binding(s) (using a label distribution protocol as per Section
    4.1.3) on its receive ports Bp to the DUT.  The test tool may
    learn the IP prefix(es) on its transmit ports Ap from the DUT.
    MPLS and/or the label distribution protocol must be enabled only
    on the test tool receive ports Bp and DUT transmit ports DBp.
 Discussion
    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as Incoming
    Label Map (ILM) to Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) mapping
    table per Section 3.11 of [RFC3031]) must contain a non-reserved
    MPLS label value as the outgoing label for each learned IP prefix
    corresponding to the label-FEC binding, resulting in the DUT
    performing the IP-to-MPLS forwarding operation.  The test tool
    must receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from the DUT) with
    the same label values that were advertised.
 Procedure
    Please see "Test Procedure" in Section 6.  Additionally, the test
    tool MUST send the frames containing IP packets (with the IP
    destination belonging to the advertised IP prefix(es)) on transmit
    ports Ap, and expect to receive frames containing MPLS packets on
    receive ports Bp, as described in Section 4.1.4.4.
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.
    Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
    for each of the tested frame sizes.  Additional columns SHOULD
    include offered load and measured throughput.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6.1.2. Throughput for MPLS Label Swap

 Objective
    To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label
    swapping operation (i.e., MPLS-to-MPLS).
 Test Setup
    In addition to the setup described in Section 6, the test tool
    must advertise IP prefix(es) (using a routing protocol as per
    Section 4.1.2) and associated MPLS label-FEC bindings (using a
    label distribution protocol as per Section 4.1.3) on the receive
    ports Bp, and then learn the IP prefix(es) as well as the label-
    FEC binding(s) on the transmit ports Ap.  The test tool must use
    the learned MPLS label values and learned IP prefix values in the
    frames transmitted on ports Ap to the DUT.
    MPLS and/or label distribution protocol must be enabled on the
    test tool ports Bp and Ap, and the DUT ports DBp and DAp.
 Discussion
    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as ILM to NHLFE
    mapping table per Section 3.11 of [RFC3031]) must contain non-
    reserved MPLS label values as the outgoing and incoming labels for
    the learned IP prefixes, resulting in an MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding
    operation, e.g., label swap.  The test tool must receive MPLS
    packets on receive ports Bp (from the DUT) with the same label
    values that were advertised using the label distribution protocol.
    The received frames must contain the same number of MPLS headers
    as those of transmitted frames.
 Procedure
    Please see "Test Procedure" in Section 6.  Additionally, the test
    tool must send frames containing MPLS packets (with the IP
    destination belonging to the advertised IP prefix(es)) on its
    transmit ports Ap, and expect to receive frames containing MPLS
    packets on its receive ports Bp, as described in Section 4.1.4.4.
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.
    Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
    for each of the tested frame sizes.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6.1.3. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (Unlabeled)

 Objective
    To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label pop
    or LSP Egress forwarding operation (i.e., MPLS-to-IP) using
    "Unlabeled" outgoing label.
 Test Setup
    In addition to the setup described in Section 6, the test tool
    must advertise the IP prefix(es) (using a routing protocol as per
    Section 4.1.2) without any MPLS label-FEC bindings on the receive
    ports Bp, and then learn the IP prefix(es) as well as the FEC-
    label binding(s) on the transmit ports Ap.  The test tool must use
    the learned MPLS label values and learned IP prefix values in the
    frames transmitted on ports Ap.
    MPLS and/or label distribution protocol must be enabled only on
    the test tool port(s) Ap and DUT port(s) DAp.
 Discussion
    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as ILM to NHLFE
    mapping table per Section 3.11 of [RFC3031]) must contain an
    Unlabeled outgoing label (also known as untagged) for the learned
    IP prefix, resulting in an MPLS-to-IP forwarding operation.
 Procedure
    Please see "Test Procedure" in Section 6.  Additionally, the test
    tool must send frames containing MPLS packets on its transmit
    ports Ap (with the IP destination belonging to the IP prefix(es)
    advertised on port Bp), and expect to receive frames containing IP
    packets on its receive ports Bp, as described in Section 4.1.4.4.
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.
    Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
    for each of the tested frame sizes.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (Aggregate)

 Objective
    To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label pop
    or LSP Egress forwarding operation (i.e., MPLS-to-IP) using the
    "Aggregate" outgoing label [RFC3031].
 Test Setup
    In addition to the setup described in Section 6, the DUT must be
    provisioned such that it allocates an aggregate outgoing label
    (please see Section 3.20 in [RFC3031]) to an IP prefix, which
    aggregates a set of prefixes learned on ports DBp from the test
    tool.  The prefix aggregation can be performed using BGP
    aggregation (Section 9.2.2.2 of [RFC4271]), IGP aggregation
    (Section 16.5 of [RFC2328]), etc.
    The DUT must advertise the aggregating IP prefix along with the
    associated MPLS label-FEC binding on ports DAp to the test tool.
    The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label values and
    learned IP prefix values in frames transmitted on ports Ap to the
    DUT.  The test tool must receive frames containing IP packets on
    ports Bp from the DUT.
    MPLS and/or label distribution protocol must be enabled only on
    the test tool port(s) Ap and DUT port(s) DAp.
 Discussion
    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as ILM to NHLFE
    mapping table per Section 3.11 of [RFC3031]) must contain an
    aggregate outgoing label and IP forwarding table must contain a
    valid entry for the learned prefix(es), resulting in MPLS-to-IP
    forwarding operation (i.e., MPLS header removal followed by IP
    lookup).
 Procedure
    Please see "Test Procedure" in Section 6.  Additionally, the test
    tool must send frames containing MPLS packets on its transmit
    ports Ap (with IP destination belonging to the IP prefix(es)
    advertised on port Bp), and expect to receive frames containing IP
    packets on its receive ports Bp, as described in Section 4.1.4.4.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.
    Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
    for each of the tested frame sizes.

6.1.5. Throughput for MPLS Label Pop (PHP)

 Objective
    To obtain the DUT's Throughput (as per RFC 2544) during label pop
    (i.e., MPLS-to-IP) or penultimate hop popping (PHP) using the
    "imp-null" outgoing label.
 Test Setup
    In addition to the setup described in Section 6, the test tool
    must be set up to advertise the IP prefix(es) (using a routing
    protocol as per Section 4.1.2) and associated MPLS label-FEC
    binding with a reserved MPLS label value = 3 (using a label
    distribution protocol as per Section 4.1.3) on its receive ports
    Bp.  The test tool must learn the IP prefix(es) as well as the
    MPLS label-FEC bindings on its transmit ports Ap.  The test tool
    then must use the learned MPLS label values and learned IP prefix
    values in the frames transmitted on ports Ap to the DUT.  The test
    tool must receive frames containing IP packets on receive ports Bp
    (from the DUT).
    MPLS and/or label distribution protocol must be enabled on the
    test tool ports Bp and Ap, and DUT ports DBp and DAp.
 Discussion
    This test case characterizes Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP), which
    is described in RFC 3031.
    The DUT's MPLS forwarding table (also referred to as ILM to NHLFE
    mapping table per Section 3.11 of [RFC3031]) must contain a
    reserved MPLS label value = 3 (e.g., pop or imp-null) as the
    outgoing label for the learned prefix(es), resulting in MPLS-to-IP
    forwarding operation.
    This test case characterizes DUT's penultimate hop popping (PHP)
    functionality.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 Procedure
    Please see "Test Procedure" in Section 6.  Additionally, the test
    tool must send frames containing MPLS packets on its transmit
    ports Ap (with IP destination belonging to advertised IP
    prefix(es)), and expect to receive frames containing IP packets on
    its receive ports Bp, as described in Section 4.1.4.4.
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.
    Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
    for each of the tested frame sizes.

6.2. Latency Measurement

 Latency measurement measures the time taken by the DUT to forward the
 MPLS packet during various MPLS switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS,
 MPLS-to-MPLS, or MPLS-to-IP involving an MPLS label stack.
 Objective
    To obtain the average latency induced by the DUT during MPLS
    packet forwarding for each of five forwarding operations.
 Test Setup
    Follow the "Test Setup" guidelines established for each of the
    five MPLS forwarding operations in Sections 6.1.1 (for IP-to-
    MPLS), 6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS), 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP Unlabeled),
    6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP Aggregate), and 6.1.5 (for MPLS-to-IP PHP),
    one by one.
 Procedure
    Please refer to Section 26.2 in RFC 2544 in addition to following
    the associated procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation in
    accord with the test setup described earlier:
       IP-to-MPLS forwarding      (Push)         Section 6.1.1
       MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding    (Swap)         Section 6.1.2
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Pop)          Section 6.1.3
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (PHP)          Section 6.1.5

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.

6.3. Frame-Loss Rate (FLR) Measurement

 Frame-Loss Rate (FLR) measurement measures the percentage of MPLS
 frames that were not forwarded during various switching paths such as
 IP-to-MPLS (push), MPLS-to-IP (swap), or MPLS-IP (pop) by the DUT
 under overloaded state.
 Please refer to RFC 2544, Section 26.3, for more details.
 Objective
    To obtain the frame-loss rate, as defined in RFC 1242, for each of
    the three MPLS forwarding operations of a DUT, throughout the
    range of input data rates and frame sizes.
 Test Setup
    Follow the "Test Setup" guidelines established for each of the
    five MPLS forwarding operations in Sections 6.1.1 (for IP-to-
    MPLS), 6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS), 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP Unlabeled),
    6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP Aggregate), and 6.1.5 (for MPLS-to-IP PHP),
    one by one.
 Procedure
    Please refer to Section 26.3 of RFC 2544 [RFC2544] and follow the
    associated procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one
    in accord with the test setup described earlier:
       IP-to-MPLS forwarding      (Push)         Section 6.1.1
       MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding    (Swap)         Section 6.1.2
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Pop)          Section 6.1.3
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (PHP)          Section 6.1.5
    A misdirected frame, that is, a frame received on the wrong Bn, is
    considered lost.  If the test tool is capable of checking received
    MPLS label values, a frame with the wrong MPLS label is considered
    lost.
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

6.4. System Recovery

 Objective
    To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an overload
    condition.
 Test Setup
    Follow the "Test Setup" guidelines established for each of the
    five MPLS forwarding operations in Sections 6.1.1 (for IP-to-
    MPLS), 6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS), 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP Unlabeled),
    6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP Aggregate), and 6.1.5 (for MPLS-to-IP PHP),
    one by one.
 Procedure
    Please refer to Section 26.5 of RFC 2544 and follow the associated
    procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation in the referenced
    sections one-by-one in accord with the test setup described
    earlier:
       IP-to-MPLS forwarding      (Push)         Section 6.1.1
       MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding    (Swap)         Section 6.1.2
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Pop)          Section 6.1.3
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (PHP)          Section 6.1.5
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and RFC 2544.

6.5. Reset

 The "reset" aspects of benchmarking are described in [RFC2544], but
 these procedures need to be clarified in order to ensure consistency.
 This document does not specify the reset procedures.  These need to
 be addressed in a separate document and will more generally apply to
 IP and MPLS test cases.
 The text below describes the MPLS forwarding benchmarking-specific
 setup that will have to be used in conjunction with the procedures
 from the separate document to make this test case meaningful.
 Objective
    To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a device or
    software reset.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 Test Setup
    Follow the "Test Setup" guidelines established for each of the
    five MPLS forwarding operations in Sections 6.1.1 (for IP-to-
    MPLS), 6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS), 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP Unlabeled),
    6.1.4 (for MPLS-to-IP Aggregate), and 6.1.5 (for MPLS-to-IP PHP),
    one by one.
    For this test case, the requirements of LDP and a routing protocol
    are removed and replaced by static configurations.  For the IP-to-
    MPLS forwarding, static route configurations should be applied.
    For the MPLS-to-MPLS and MPLS-to-IP, static label configurations
    must be applied.
    For this test, all Graceful Restart features MUST be disabled.
 Discussion
    This test case is intended to provide insight into how long an
    MPLS device could take to be fully operational after any of the
    reset events.  It is quite likely that the time an IP/MPLS device
    takes to become fully operational after any of the reset events
    may be different from that of an IP-only device.
    Modern devices now have many more reset options that were not
    available when Section 26.6 of RFC 2544 was published.  Moreover,
    different reset events on modern devices may produce different
    results, hence, needing clarity and consistency in reset
    procedures beyond what's specified in RFC 2544.
 Procedure
    Please follow the procedure from the separate document for each
    MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one:
       IP-to-MPLS forwarding      (Push)         Section 6.1.1
       MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding    (Swap)         Section 6.1.2
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Pop)          Section 6.1.3
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4
       MPLS-to-IP forwarding      (PHP)          Section 6.1.5
 Reporting Format
    The result should be reported as per Section 5 and as per the
    separate document.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

7. 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.
 Furthermore, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis,
 relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT
 (System Under Test).
 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.
 There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
 this document.

8. Acknowledgement

 The authors would like to thank Mo Khalid, who motivated us to write
 this document.  We would like to thank Rodney Dunn, Chip Popoviciu,
 Jeff Byzek, Jay Karthik, Rajiv Papneja, Samir Vapiwala, Silvija
 Andrijic Dry, Scott Bradner, Al Morton, and Bill Cerveny for their
 careful review and suggestions.
 This document was originally prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
           Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
 [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
           Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
           Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
 [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
           Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
           Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
 [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
           BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
           "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
           Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
           Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
           and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
           Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
           Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border
           Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
 [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
           2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September
           2006.
 [IEE8021] Mick Seaman (editor), "IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, MAC Bridges",
           Feb 2004.
 [IEE8023] LAN/MAN Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society,
           "IEEE Std 802.3as-2006, Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple
           Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
           Physical Layer Specifications, Amendment 3: Frame format
           extensions", Nov 2006.
 [RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
           Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443,
           January 2003.

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 5695 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology November 2009

 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
 [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
           (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
           Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
 [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
           Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC
           4928, June 2007.
 [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
           Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
           May 2005.

Authors' Addresses

 Aamer Akhter
 Cisco Systems
 7025 Kit Creek Road
 RTP, NC 27709
 USA
 EMail: aakhter@cisco.com
 Rajiv Asati
 Cisco Systems
 7025 Kit Creek Road
 RTP, NC 27709
 USA
 EMail: rajiva@cisco.com
 Carlos Pignataro
 Cisco Systems
 7200-12 Kit Creek Road
 RTP, NC 27709
 USA
 EMail: cpignata@cisco.com

Akhter, et al. Informational [Page 27]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5695.txt · Last modified: 2009/11/05 19:14 (external edit)