GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6894

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Papneja Request for Comments: 6894 Huawei Technologies Category: Informational S. Vapiwala ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Karthik

                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                           S. Poretsky
                                                  Allot Communications
                                                                S. Rao
                                                  Qwest Communications
                                                           JL. Le Roux
                                                        France Telecom
                                                            March 2013
   Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS Traffic Engineered (MPLS-TE)
                      Fast Reroute Protection

Abstract

 This document describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast
 Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms for link and node protection.
 This document provides test methodologies and testbed setup for
 measuring failover times of Fast Reroute techniques while considering
 factors (such as underlying links) that might impact
 recovery times for real-time applications bound to MPLS Traffic
 Engineered (MPLS-TE) tunnels.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any
 errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6894.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.
 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
 2. Document Scope ..................................................5
 3. Existing Definitions and Requirements ...........................5
 4. General Reference Topology ......................................6
 5. Test Considerations .............................................7
    5.1. Failover Events ............................................7
    5.2. Failure Detection ..........................................8
    5.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection Benchmarking .......8
    5.4. LSP and Route Scaling ......................................9
    5.5. Selection of IGP ...........................................9
    5.6. Restoration and Reversion ..................................9
    5.7. Offered Load ...............................................9
    5.8. Tester Capabilities .......................................10
    5.9. Failover Time Measurement Methods .........................10
 6. Reference Test Setup ...........................................11
    6.1. Link Protection ...........................................12
         6.1.1. Link Protection: 1-Hop Primary (from PLR)
                and 1-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................12

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

         6.1.2. Link Protection: 1-Hop Primary (from PLR)
                and 2-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................13
         6.1.3. Link Protection: 2-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR)
                and 1-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................14
         6.1.4. Link Protection: 2-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR)
                and 2-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................15
    6.2. Node Protection ...........................................16
         6.2.1. Node Protection: 2-Hop Primary (from PLR)
                and 1-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................16
         6.2.2. Node Protection: 2-Hop Primary (from PLR)
                and 2-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................17
         6.2.3. Node Protection: 3-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR)
                and 1-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................18
         6.2.4. Node Protection: 3-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR)
                and 2-Hop Backup Tail-End Tunnels ..................19
 7. Test Methodology ...............................................19
    7.1. MPLS-FRR Forwarding Performance ...........................20
         7.1.1. Head-End PLR Forwarding Performance ................20
         7.1.2. Midpoint PLR Forwarding Performance ................21
    7.2. Head-End PLR with Link Failure ............................22
    7.3. Midpoint PLR with Link Failure ............................24
    7.4. Head-End PLR with Node Failure ............................25
    7.5. Midpoint PLR with Node Failure ............................26
 8. Reporting Format ...............................................27
 9. Security Considerations ........................................29
 10. Acknowledgements ..............................................29
 11. References ....................................................29
    11.1. Normative References .....................................29
    11.2. Informative References ...................................30
 Appendix A. Fast Reroute Scalability Table ........................31
 Appendix B. Abbreviations .........................................34

1. Introduction

 This document describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast
 Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms.  This document uses much of the
 terminology defined in [RFC6414].
 Protection mechanisms provide recovery of client services from a
 planned or an unplanned link or node failure.  MPLS-FRR protection
 mechanisms are generally deployed in a network infrastructure where
 MPLS is used for the provisioning of point-to-point traffic
 engineered tunnels (tunnel).  MPLS-FRR protection mechanisms aim to
 reduce the service disruption period by minimizing recovery time from
 most common failures.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 Network elements from different manufacturers behave differently to
 network failures, which impacts the network's ability and performance
 for failure recovery.  Therefore, it becomes imperative for service
 providers to have a common benchmark to understand the performance
 behaviors of network elements.
 There are two factors impacting service availability: frequency of
 failures and duration for which the failures persist.  Failures can
 be classified further into two types: correlated and uncorrelated.
 Correlated and uncorrelated failures may be planned or unplanned.
 Planned failures are generally predictable.  Network implementations
 should be able to handle both planned and unplanned failures and
 recover gracefully within a time frame to maintain service assurance.
 Hence, failover recovery time is one of the most important benchmarks
 that a service provider considers in choosing the building blocks for
 their network infrastructure.
 A correlated failure is a result of the occurrence of two or more
 failures.  A typical example is failure of a logical resource (e.g.,
 Layer-2 (L2) links) due to a dependency on a common physical resource
 (e.g., common conduit) that fails.  Within the context of MPLS
 protection mechanisms, failures that arise due to Shared Risk Link
 Groups (SRLGs) [RFC4202] can be considered as correlated failures.
 MPLS-FRR [RFC4090] allows for the possibility that the Label Switched
 Paths (LSPs) can be reoptimized in the minutes following failover.
 IP traffic would be rerouted according to the preferred path for the
 post-failure topology.  Thus, MPLS-FRR may include additional steps
 following the occurrence of the failure detection and failover event
 [RFC6414].
 (1)  Failover Event - Primary path (working path) fails
 (2)  Failure Detection - Failover event is detected
 (3a)  Failover - Working path switched to backup path
 (3b)  Reoptimization of working path (possible change from backup
       path)
 (4)  Restoration (see Section 3.3.5 of [RFC6414])
 (5)  Reversion (see Section 3.3.6 of [RFC6414])

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

2. Document Scope

 This document provides detailed test cases along with different
 topologies and scenarios that should be considered to effectively
 benchmark MPLS-FRR protection mechanisms and failover times on the
 data plane.  Different failover events and scaling considerations are
 also provided in this document.
 All benchmarking test cases defined in this document apply to
 facility backup [RFC4090].  The test cases cover a set of interesting
 failure scenarios and the associated procedures benchmark the
 performance of the Device Under Test (DUT) to recover from failures.
 Data-plane traffic is used to benchmark failover times.  Testing
 scenarios related to MPLS-TE protection mechanisms when applied to
 MPLS Transport Profile and IP fast reroute applied to MPLS networks
 were not considered and are outside the scope of this document.
 However, the test setups considered for MPLS-based L3 and L2 services
 consider LDP over MPLS RSVP-TE configurations.
 Benchmarking of correlated failures is outside the scope of this
 document.  Detection using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
 is outside the scope of this document, but it is mentioned in
 discussion sections.
 The performance of the control plane is outside the scope of this
 document.
 As described above, MPLS-FRR may include a reoptimization of the
 working path, with possible packet transfer impairments.
 Characterization of reoptimization is beyond the scope of this memo.

3. Existing Definitions and 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 [RFC2119].
 While [RFC2119] defines the use of these key words primarily for
 Standards Track documents, this Informational document uses some of
 these key words.
 The reader is assumed to be familiar with the commonly used MPLS
 terminology, some of which is defined in [RFC4090].
 This document uses much of the terminology defined in [RFC6414].
 This document also uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG
 documents [RFC1242] [RFC2285] [RFC4689].  Appendix B provides
 abbreviations used in the document.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

4. General Reference Topology

 Figure 1 illustrates the general reference topology.  It shows the
 basic reference testbed and is applicable to all the test cases
 defined in this document.  The Tester is comprised of a Traffic
 Generator (TG) and Traffic Analyzer (TA) and Emulator.  A Tester is
 connected to the test network and, depending upon the test case, the
 DUT could vary.  The Tester sends and receives IP traffic to the
 tunnel ingress and performs signaling protocol emulation to simulate
 real network scenarios in a lab environment.  The Tester may also
 support MPLS-TE signaling to act as the ingress node to the MPLS
 tunnel.  The lines in figures represent physical connections.
      +---------------------------+
      |              +------------|---------------+
      |              |            |               |
      |              |            |               |
  +--------+     +--------+    +--------+    +--------+   +--------+

TG–| R1 |—–| R2 |—-| R3 | | R4 | | R5 |

  |        |-----|        |----|        |----|        |---|        |
  +--------+     +--------+    +--------+    +--------+   +--------+
      |             |              |            |            |
      |             |              |            |            |
      |         +--------+         |            |           TA
      +---------|   R6   |---------+            |
                |        |----------------------+
                +--------+
                              Figure 1
 The tester MUST record the number of lost, duplicate, and out-of-
 order packets.  It should further record arrival and departure times
 so that failover time, Additive Latency, and Reversion Time can be
 measured.  The tester may be a single device or a test system
 emulating all the different roles along a primary or backup path.
 The label stack is dependent on the following three entities:
 (1)  Type of protection (Link versus Node)
 (2)  Number of remaining hops of the primary tunnel from the Point of
      Local Repair (PLR) [RFC6414]
 (3)  Number of remaining hops of the backup tunnel from the PLR
 Due to this dependency, it is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarking of
 failover times be performed on all the topologies provided in Section
 6.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

5. Test Considerations

 This section discusses the fundamentals of MPLS Protection testing:
    (1)  The types of network events that cause failover (Section 5.1)
    (2)  Indications for failover (Section 5.2)
    (3)  The use of data traffic (Section 5.3)
    (4)  Label Switched Path Scaling (Section 5.4)
    (5)  IGP Selection (Section 5.5)
    (6)  Reversion of LSP (Section 5.6)
    (7)  Traffic generation (Section 5.7)

5.1. Failover Events

 The failover to the backup tunnel is primarily triggered by either
 link or node failures observed downstream of the Point of Local
 Repair (PLR).  The failure events [RFC6414] are listed below.
 Link Failure Events
    - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with physical/link alarm
    - Interface Shutdown on remote side with physical/link alarm
    - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with RSVP hello enabled
    - Interface Shutdown on remote side with RSVP hello enabled
    - Interface Shutdown on PLR side with BFD
    - Interface Shutdown on remote side with BFD
    - Fiber Pull on the PLR side (both Transmit (TX) and Receive (RX)
      or just the TX)
    - Fiber Pull on the remote side (both TX and RX or just the RX)
    - Online Insertion and Removal (OIR) on PLR side
    - OIR on remote side
    - Sub-interface failure on PLR side (e.g., shutting down of a
      VLAN)
    - Sub-interface failure on remote side
    - Parent interface shutdown on PLR side (an interface bearing
      multiple sub-interfaces)
    - Parent interface shutdown on remote side
 Node Failure Events
    - A System reload initiated by either a graceful shutdown or a
      power failure
    - A system crash due to a software failure or an assert

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

5.2. Failure Detection

 Link failure detection [RFC6414] time depends on the link type and
 failure detection protocols running.  For Synchronous Optical Network
 (SONET) / Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), the alarm type (such
 as LOS, AIS, or RDI) can be used.  Other link types have L2 alarms,
 but they may not provide a short enough failure detection time.
 Ethernet-based links enabled with MPLS/IP do not have L2 failure
 indicators; therefore, they rely on L3 signaling for failure
 detection.  However, for directly connected devices, remote fault
 indication in the ethernet auto-negotiation scheme could be
 considered as a type of L2 link failure indicator.
 MPLS has different failure detection techniques, such as BFD, or use
 of RSVP hellos.  These methods can be used for the L3 failure
 indicators required by ethernet-based links or for some other non-
 ethernet-based links to help improve failure detection time.
 However, these fast failure detection mechanisms are out of scope.
 The test procedures in this document can be used for local failure or
 remote failure scenarios for comprehensive benchmarking and to
 evaluate failover performance independent of the failure detection
 techniques.

5.3. Use of Data Traffic for MPLS Protection Benchmarking

 Currently, end customers use packet loss as a key metric for failover
 time [RFC6414].  Failover Packet Loss [RFC6414] is an externally
 observable event and has a direct impact on application performance.
 MPLS protection is expected to minimize packet loss in the event of a
 failure.  For this reason, it is important to develop a standard
 router benchmarking methodology for measuring MPLS protection that
 uses packet loss as a metric.  At a known rate of forwarding, packet
 loss can be measured and the failover time can be determined.
 Measurement of control-plane signaling to establish backup paths is
 not enough to verify failover.  Failover is best determined when
 packets are actually traversing the backup path.
 An additional benefit of using packet loss for calculation of
 failover time is that it allows use of a black-box test environment.
 Data traffic is offered at line-rate to the DUT, an emulated network
 failure event is forced to occur, and packet loss is externally
 measured to calculate the convergence time.  This setup is
 independent of the DUT architecture.
 In addition, this methodology considers the packets in error and
 duplicate packets [RFC4689] that could have been generated during the
 failover process.  The methodologies consider lost, out-of-order

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 [RFC4689], and duplicate packets to be impaired packets that
 contribute to the failover time.

5.4. LSP and Route Scaling

 Failover time performance may vary with the number of established
 primary and backup tunnel LSPs and installed routes.  However, the
 procedure outlined here should be used for any number of LSPs (L) and
 any number of routes protected by the PLR (R).  The values of L and R
 must be recorded.

5.5. Selection of IGP

 The underlying IGP could be ISIS-TE or OSPF-TE for the methodology
 proposed here.  See [RFC6412] for IGP options to consider and report.

5.6. Restoration and Reversion

 Path restoration [RFC6414] provides a method to restore an alternate
 primary LSP upon failure and to switch traffic from the backup path
 to the restored primary path (reversion).  In MPLS-FRR, reversion
 [RFC6414] can be implemented as Global Reversion or Local Reversion.
 It is important to include restoration and reversion as a step in
 each test case to measure the amount of packet loss, out-of-order
 packets, or duplicate packets that are produced.
 Note: In addition to restoration and reversion, reoptimization can
 take place while the failure is still not recovered but it depends on
 the user configuration and reoptimization timers.

5.7. Offered Load

 It is suggested that there be three or more traffic streams as long
 as there is a steady and constant rate of flow for all of the
 streams.  In order to monitor the DUT performance for recovery times,
 a set of route prefixes should be advertised before traffic is sent.
 The traffic should be configured towards these routes.
 Prefix-dependency behaviors are key in IP, and tests with route-
 specific flows spread across the routing table will reveal this
 dependency.  Generating traffic to all of the prefixes reachable by
 the protected tunnel (probably in a Round-Robin fashion, where the
 traffic is destined to all the prefixes but one prefix at a time in a
 cyclic manner) is not recommended.  Round-Robin traffic generation is
 not recommended to all prefixes, as time to hit all the prefixes may
 be higher than the failover time.  This phenomenon will reduce the
 granularity of the measured results, and the results observed may not
 be accurate.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

5.8. Tester Capabilities

 It is RECOMMENDED that the Tester used to execute each test case have
 the following capabilities:
    1. Ability to establish MPLS-TE tunnels and push/pop labels.
    2. Ability to produce a failover event [RFC6414].
    3. Ability to insert a timestamp in each data packet's IP payload.
    4. An internal time clock to control timestamping, time
       measurements, and time calculations.
    5. Ability to disable or tune specific L2 and L3 protocol
       functions on any interface.
    6. Ability to react upon the receipt of path error from the PLR.
 The Tester MAY be capable of making non-data-plane convergence
 observations and use those observations for measurements.

5.9. Failover Time Measurement Methods

 Failover time [RFC6414] is calculated using one of the following
 three methods:
    1. Packet-Loss-Based Method (PLBM): (Number of packets dropped/
       packets per second * 1000) milliseconds.  This method could
       also be referred to as the Loss-Derived method.
    2. Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM): This method relies on the
       ability of the traffic generators to provide statistics that
       reveal the duration of failure in milliseconds based on when
       the packet loss occurred (interval between non-zero packet loss
       and zero loss).
    3. Timestamp-Based Method (TBM): This method of failover
       calculation is based on the timestamp that gets transmitted as
       payload in the packets originated by the generator.  The
       traffic analyzer records the timestamp of the last packet
       received before the failover event and the first packet after
       the failover and derives the time based on the difference
       between these two timestamps.  Note: The payload could also
       contain sequence numbers for out-of-order packet calculation
       and duplicate packets.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 TBM would be able to detect reversion impairments beyond loss; thus,
 it is RECOMMENDED as the failover time method.

6. Reference Test Setup

 In addition to the general reference topology shown in Figure 1, this
 section provides detailed insight into various proposed test setups
 that should be considered for comprehensively benchmarking the
 failover time in different roles along the primary tunnel.
 This section proposes a set of topologies that covers all the
 scenarios for local protection.  All of these topologies can be
 mapped to the reference topology shown in Figure 1.  Topologies
 provided in this section refer to the testbed required to benchmark
 failover time when the DUT is configured as a PLR in either head-end
 or midpoint role.  Provided with each topology below is the label
 stack at the PLR.  Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) MAY be used and must
 be reported when used.
 Figures 2 through 9 use the following convention and are subset of
 Figure 1:
    a) HE is Head-End
    b) T/E is Tail-End
    c) MID is Midpoint
    d) MP is Merge Point
    e) PLR is Point of Local Repair
    f) PRI is Primary Path
    g) BKP denotes Backup Path and Nodes
    h) UR is Upstream Router

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.1. Link Protection

6.1.1. Link Protection: 1-Hop Primary (from PLR) and 1-Hop Backup

      Tail-End Tunnels
             +-------+  +--------+    +--------+
             |  R1   |  |   R2   | PRI|   R3   |
             | UR/HE |--| HE/MID |----| MP/T/E |
             |       |  |  PLR   |----|        |
             +-------+  +--------+ BKP+--------+
                           Figure 2
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)         0             0
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)       1             1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)        2             2
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)        1             1
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)         2             2
        Midpoint LSPs            0             0
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2 and R3 act as P routers
 b) For the PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R3 acts as a remote PE
 c) For the PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router,
    and R5 acts as a remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for
    complete setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, and R3 act as HE, midpoint/PLR, and
    tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.1.2. Link Protection: 1-Hop Primary (from PLR) and 2-Hop Backup

      Tail-End Tunnels
           +-------+    +--------+    +--------+
           |  R1   |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |
           | UR/HE |    | HE/MID |PRI | MP/T/E |
           |       |----|  PLR   |----|        |
           +-------+    +--------+    +--------+
                            |BKP               |
                            |    +--------+    |
                            |    |   R6   |    |
                            |----|  BKP   |----|
                                 |   MID  |
                                 +--------+
                         Figure 3
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       0              1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     1              2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      2              3
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      1              2
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       2              3
        Midpoint LSPs          0              1
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2 and R3 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R3 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router, and
    R5 acts as a remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for
    complete setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, and R3 act as HE, midpoint/PLR, and
    tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.1.3. Link Protection: 2-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR) and 1-Hop

      Backup Tail-End Tunnels
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
           |  R1    |    | R2     |PRI |   R3   |PRI   |   R4   |
           |  UR/HE |----| HE/MID |----| MP/MID |------|  T/E   |
           |        |    | PLR    |----|        |      |        |
           +--------+    +--------+ BKP+--------+      +--------+
                                 Figure 4
        Traffic            No. of Labels   Num of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1                1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2                2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3                3
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2                2
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3                3
        Midpoint LSPs          1                1
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, and R4 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R4 acts as a remote PE c) For
    PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router, and R5
    acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for complete
    setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3, and R4 act as HE, midpoint/PLR,
    and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.1.4. Link Protection: 2-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR) and 2-Hop

      Backup Tail-End Tunnels
           +--------+    +--------+PRI +--------+  PRI +--------+
           |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |      |   R4   |
           | UR/HE  |----| HE/MID |----|  MP/MID|------|  T/E   |
           |        |    | PLR    |    |        |      |        |
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
                         BKP|              |
                            |   +--------+ |
                            |   |   R6   | |
                            +---|  BKP   |-
                                |  MID   |
                                +--------+
                                 Figure 5
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1              2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2              3
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3              4
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2              3
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3              4
        Midpoint LSPs          1              2
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, and R4 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R3 acts as a P router, and
    R5 acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for complete
    setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3 and R4 act as HE, midpoint/PLR,
    and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.2. Node Protection

6.2.1. Node Protection: 2-Hop Primary (from PLR) and 1-Hop Backup

      Tail-End Tunnels
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
           |  R1    |    |  R2    |PRI |   R3   | PRI  |   R4   |
           | UR/HE  |----| HE/MID |----|  MID   |------| MP/T/E |
           |        |    |  PLR   |    |        |      |        |
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+      +--------+
                           |BKP                          |
                            -----------------------------
                                Figure 6
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             0
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             2
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             1
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             2
        Midpoint LSPs          1             0
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, and R4 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router, and
    R5 acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for complete
    setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3, and R4 act as HE, midpoint/PLR,
    and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.2.2. Node Protection: 2-Hop Primary (from PLR) and 2-Hop Backup

      Tail-End Tunnels
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+
           |  R1    |    |  R2    |    |   R3   |    |   R4   |
           | UR/HE  |    | HE/MID |PRI |  MID   |PRI | MP/T/E |
           |        |----|  PLR   |----|        |----|        |
           +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+
                           |                            |
                        BKP|         +--------+         |
                           |         |   R6   |         |
                            ---------|  BKP   |---------
                                     |  MID   |
                                     +--------+
                                 Figure 7
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure   after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1              1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2              2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3              3
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2              2
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3              3
        Midpoint LSPs         1              1
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, and R4 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R4 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router, and
    R5 acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for complete
    setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3, and R4 act as HE, midpoint/PLR,
    and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.2.3. Node Protection: 3-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR) and 1-Hop

      Backup Tail-End Tunnels
       +--------+  +--------+PRI+--------+PRI+--------+PRI+--------+
       |  R1    |  |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
       | UR/HE  |--| HE/MID |---| MID    |---|  MP    |---|  T/E   |
       |        |  |  PLR   |   |        |   |        |   |        |
       +--------+  +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
                   BKP|                          |
                       --------------------------
                                 Figure 8
        Traffic            No. of Labels  No. of labels
                           before failure  after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             1
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             3
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             2
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             3
        Midpoint LSPs          1             1
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, R4, and R5 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R5 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router, and
    R5 acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for complete
    setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 act as HE,
    midpoint/PLR, and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the figure
    above)

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

6.2.4. Node Protection: 3-Hop (or More) Primary (from PLR) and 2-Hop

      Backup Tail-End Tunnels
    +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
    |  R1    |   |  R2    |   |   R3   |   |   R4   |   |   R5   |
    | UR/HE  |   | HE/MID |PRI|  MID   |PRI|  MP    |PRI|  T/E   |
    |        |-- |  PLR   |---|        |---|        |---|        |
    +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+
                  BKP|                          |
                     |         +--------+       |
                     |         |  R6    |       |
                      ---------|  BKP   |-------
                               |  MID   |
                               +--------+
                                Figure 9
        Traffic            No. of Labels   No. of labels
                           before failure   after failure
        IP TRAFFIC (P-P)       1             2
        Layer3 VPN (PE-PE)     2             3
        Layer3 VPN (PE-P)      3             4
        Layer2 VC (PE-PE)      2             3
        Layer2 VC (PE-P)       3             4
        Midpoint LSPs          1             2
 Please note the following:
 a) For the P-P case, R2, R3, R4, and R5 act as P routers
 b) For PE-PE cases, R2 acts as a PE and R5 acts as a remote PE
 c) For PE-P cases, R2 acts as a PE router, R4 acts as a P router,
    and R5 acts as remote PE router (please refer to Figure 1 for
    complete setup)
 d) For the midpoint case, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 act as HE,
    midpoint/PLR, and tail-end, respectively (as shown in the
    figure above)

7. Test Methodology

 The procedure described in this section can be applied to all eight
 base test cases and the associated topologies.  The backup as well as
 the primary tunnels are configured to be alike in terms of bandwidth
 usage.  In order to benchmark failover with all possible label stack
 depth applicable (as seen with current deployments), it is
 RECOMMENDED to perform all of the test cases provided in this
 section.  The forwarding performance test cases in Section 7.1 MUST
 be performed prior to performing the failover test cases.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 The considerations of Section 4 of [RFC2544] are applicable when
 evaluating the results obtained using these methodologies as well.

7.1. MPLS-FRR Forwarding Performance

 Benchmarking failover time [RFC6414] for MPLS protection first
 requires a baseline measurement of the forwarding performance of the
 test topology, including the DUT.  Forwarding performance is
 benchmarked by the throughput as defined in [RFC5695] and measured in
 units of packets per second (pps).  This section provides two test
 cases to benchmark forwarding performance.  These are with the DUT
 configured as a head-end PLR, midpoint PLR, and egress PLR.

7.1.1. Head-End PLR Forwarding Performance

 Objective:
    To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as head-end) over
    the primary LSP and backup LSP.
    Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology out of the eight from Section 6.
    B.  Select or enable IP, L3 VPN, or L2 VPN services with the DUT
        as head-end PLR.
    C.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator/analyzer.  (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
        a simulated node, then the ingress of the tunnel should have
        one link connected to the traffic generator, and the node
        downstream of the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
        a link connected to the traffic analyzer).
 Procedure:
    1.   Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
         selected.
    2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
    3.   Verify that primary and backup LSPs are up and that the
         primary is protected.
    4.   Verify that Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
    5.   Set up traffic streams as described in Section 5.7.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

    6.   Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the throughput
         supported by the DUT (Section 6 of [RFC2544]).
    7.   Record the throughput over the primary LSP.
    8.   Trigger a link failure as described in Section 5.1.
    9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
         and measure the Additive Backup Delay [RFC6414].
    10.  30 seconds after failover, stop the offered load and measure
         the throughput, packet loss, out-of-order packets, and
         duplicate packets over the backup LSP.
    11.  Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
         the throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
         equal.
    12.  Record the final throughput, which corresponds to the offered
         load that will be used for the head-end PLR failover test
         cases.

7.1.2. Midpoint PLR Forwarding Performance

 Objective:
    To benchmark the maximum rate (pps) on the PLR (as midpoint) over
    the primary LSP and backup LSP.
 Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology out of the eight from Section 6.
    B.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator.
 Procedure:
    1.   Establish the primary LSP on R1 required by the topology
         selected.
    2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
    3.   Verify that primary and backup LSPs are up and that the
         primary is protected.
    4.   Verify that Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

    5.   Set up traffic streams as described in Section 5.7.
    6.   Send MPLS traffic over the primary LSP at the throughput
         supported by the DUT (Section 6 of [RFC2544]).
    7.   Record the throughput over the primary LSP.
    8.   Trigger a link failure as described in Section 5.1.
    9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
         and measure the Additive Backup Delay [RFC6414].
    10.  30 seconds after failover, stop the offered load and measure
         the throughput, packet loss, out-of-order packets, and
         duplicate packets over the backup LSP.
    11.  Adjust the offered load and repeat steps 6 through 10 until
         the throughput values for the primary and backup LSPs are
         equal.
    12.  Record the final throughput, which corresponds to the offered
         load that will be used for the midpoint PLR failover test
         cases.

7.2. Head-End PLR with Link Failure

 Objective:
    To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
    described in Section 5.1 experienced by the DUT, which is the
    head-end PLR.
 Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology out of the eight from Section 6.
    B.  Select or enable IP, L3 VPN, or L2 VPN services with the DUT
        as head-end PLR.
    C.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator/analyzer.  (If the node downstream of the PLR is not
        a simulated node, then the ingress of the tunnel should have
        one link connected to the traffic generator, and the node
        downstream to the PLR or the egress of the tunnel should have
        a link connected to the traffic analyzer).

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 Test Configuration:
    1.  Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
        as required by the topology selected.
    2.  Configure the test setup to support reversion.
    3.  Advertise prefixes (as per the FRR Scalability Table in
        Appendix A) by the tail-end.
 Procedure:
    The test case in Section 7.1.1, "Head-End PLR Forwarding
    Performance", MUST be completed first to obtain the throughput to
    use as the offered load.
    1.   Establish the primary LSP on R2 required by the topology
         selected.
    2.   Establish the backup LSP on R2 required by the selected
         topology.
    3.   Verify that primary and backup LSPs are up and that the
         primary is protected.
    4.   Verify that Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
    5.   Set up traffic streams for the offered load as described in
         Section 5.7.
    6.   Provide the offered load from the tester at the throughput
         [RFC1242] level obtained from the test case in Section 7.1.1.
    7.   Verify that traffic is switched over the primary LSP without
         packet loss.
    8.   Trigger a link failure as described in Section 5.1.
    9.   Verify that the offered load gets mapped to the backup tunnel
         and measure the Additive Backup Delay [RFC6414].
    10.  30 seconds after failover, stop the offered load and measure
         the total failover packet loss [RFC6414].
    11.  Calculate the failover time benchmark using the selected
         failover time calculation method (TBLM, PLBM, or TBM)
         [RFC6414].

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

    12.  Restart the offered load and restore the primary LSP to
         verify that reversion occurs and measure the Reversion Packet
         Loss [RFC6414].
    13.  Calculate the Reversion Time benchmark using the selected
         failover time calculation method (TBLM, PLBM, or TBM)
         [RFC6414].
    14.  Verify that the head-end signals new LSP and protection
         should be in place again.
 It is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
 link failure triggers defined in Section 5.1.

7.3. Midpoint PLR with Link Failure

 Objective:
    To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to link failure events
    described in Section 5.1 experienced by the DUT, which is the
    midpoint PLR.
 Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology out of the eight from Section 6.
    B.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator.
 Test Configuration:
    1.  Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
        as required by the topology selected.
    2.  Configure the test setup to support reversion.
    3.  Advertise prefixes (as per the FRR Scalability Table in
        Appendix A) by the tail-end.
 Procedure:
    The test case in Section 7.1.2, "Midpoint PLR Forwarding
    Performance", MUST be completed first to obtain the throughput to
    use as the offered load.
    1.  Establish the primary LSP on R1 as required by the topology
        selected.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

    2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 as required by the selected
        topology.
    3.  Perform steps 3 through 14 from Section 7.2, "Head-End PLR
        with Link Failure".
 It is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
 link failure triggers defined in section 5.1.

7.4. Head-End PLR with Node Failure

 Objective:
    To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to node failure events
    described in Section 5.1 experienced by the DUT, which is the
    head-end PLR.
 Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology out of the eight from Section 6.
    B.  Select or enable IP, L3 VPN, or L2 VPN services with the DUT
        as head-end PLR.
    C.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator/analyzer.
 Test Configuration:
    1.  Configure the number of primaries on R2 and the backups on R2
        as required by the topology selected.
    2.  Configure the test setup to support reversion.
    3.  Advertise prefixes (as per the FRR Scalability Table in
        Appendix A) by the tail-end.
 Procedure:
    The test case in Section 7.1.1, "Head-End PLR Forwarding
    Performance", MUST be completed first to obtain the throughput to
    use as the offered load.
    1.  Establish the primary LSP on R2 as required by the topology
        selected.
    2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 as required by the selected
        topology.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

    3.  Verify that the primary and backup LSPs are up and that the
        primary is protected.
    4.  Verify that Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
    5.  Set up traffic streams for the offered load as described in
        Section 5.7.
    6.  Provide the offered load from the tester at the throughput
        [RFC1242] level obtained from the test case in Section 7.1.1.
    7.  Verify that traffic is switched over the primary LSP without
        packet loss.
    8.  Trigger a node failure as described in Section 5.1.
    9.  Perform steps 9 through 14 in Section 7.2, "Head-End PLR with
        Link Failure".
 It is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
 node failure triggers defined in Section 5.1.

7.5. Midpoint PLR with Node Failure

 Objective:
    To benchmark the MPLS failover time due to node failure events
    described in Section 5.1 experienced by the DUT, which is the
    midpoint PLR.
 Test Setup:
    A.  Select any one topology from Sections 6.1 to 6.2.
    B.  The DUT will also have two interfaces connected to the traffic
        generator.
 Test Configuration:
    1.  Configure the number of primaries on R1 and the backups on R2
        as required by the topology selected.
    2.  Configure the test setup to support reversion.
    3.  Advertise prefixes (as per the FRR Scalability Table in
        Appendix A) by the tail-end.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 Procedure:
    The test case in Section 7.1.1, "Midpoint PLR Forwarding
    Performance", MUST be completed first to obtain the throughput to
    use as the offered load.
    1.  Establish the primary LSP on R1 as required by the topology
        selected.
    2.  Establish the backup LSP on R2 as required by the selected
        topology.
    3.  Verify that the primary and backup LSPs are up and that the
        primary is protected.
    4.  Verify that Fast Reroute protection is enabled and ready.
    5.  Set up traffic streams for the offered load as described in
        Section 5.7.
    6.  Provide the offered load from the tester at the throughput
        [RFC1242] level obtained from the test case in Section 7.1.1.
    7.  Verify that traffic is switched over the primary LSP without
        packet loss.
    8.  Trigger a node failure as described in Section 5.1.
    9.  Perform steps 9 through 14 in Section 7.2, "Head-End PLR with
        Link Failure".
 It is RECOMMENDED that this procedure be repeated for each of the
 node failure triggers defined in Section 5.1.

8. Reporting Format

 For each test, it is RECOMMENDED that the results be reported in the
 following format.
       Parameter                          Units
       IGP used for the test              ISIS-TE / OSPF-TE
       Interface types                    Gige,POS,ATM,VLAN, etc.
       Packet Sizes offered to the DUT    Bytes (at L3)
       Offered Load (Throughput)          Packets per second

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

       IGP routes advertised              Number of IGP routes
       Penultimate Hop Popping            Used/Not Used
       RSVP hello timers                  Milliseconds
       Number of Protected tunnels        Number of tunnels
       Number of VPN routes installed     Number of VPN routes
       on the head-end
       Number of VC tunnels               Number of VC tunnels
       Number of midpoint tunnels         Number of tunnels
       Number of Prefixes protected by    Number of LSPs
       Primary
       Topology being used                Section number, and
                                          figure reference
       Failover event                     Event type
       Reoptimization                     Yes/No
    Benchmarks (to be recorded for each test case):
    Failover-
        Failover Time                        seconds
        Failover Packet Loss                 packets
        Additive Backup Delay                seconds
        Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
        Duplicate Packets                    packets
        Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used
    Reversion-
        Reversion Time                       seconds
        Reversion Packet Loss                packets
        Additive Backup Delay                seconds
        Out-of-Order Packets                 packets
        Duplicate Packets                    packets
        Failover Time Calculation Method     Method Used

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 28] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

9. Security Considerations

 Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
 technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
 environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
 specified in the sections above.
 The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
 and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
 traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
 management network.
 Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
 solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
 Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
 benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network security arising
 from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
 networks.

10. Acknowledgements

 We would like to thank Jean Philip Vasseur for his invaluable input
 to the document, Curtis Villamizar for his contribution in suggesting
 text on the definition and need for benchmarking Correlated failures,
 and Bhavani Parise for his textual input and review.  Additionally,
 we would like to thank Al Morton, Arun Gandhi, Amrit Hanspal, Karu
 Ratnam, Raveesh Janardan, Andrey Kiselev, and Mohan Nanduri for their
 formal reviews of this document.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

 [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
            Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
 [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.
 [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
            Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
            May 2005.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 29] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

 [RFC5695]  Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
            Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695, November
            2009.
 [RFC6412]  Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
            for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
            Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.
 [RFC6414]  Poretsky, S., Papneja, R., Karthik, J., and S. Vapiwala,
            "Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance", RFC
            6414, November 2011.

11.2. Informative References

 [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
            Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
 [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
            Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
            Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
 [RFC4689]  Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
            "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic
            Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 30] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

Appendix A. Fast Reroute Scalability Table

 This section provides the recommended numbers for evaluating the
 scalability of fast reroute implementations.  It also recommends the
 typical numbers for IGP/VPNv4 Prefixes, LSP Tunnels, and VC entries.
 Based on the features supported by the DUT, appropriate scaling
 limits can be used for the testbed.

A.1. FRR IGP Table

    No. of Head-End TE Tunnels      IGP Prefixes
    1                               100
    1                               500
    1                               1000
    1                               2000
    1                               5000
    2 (Load Balance)                100
    2 (Load Balance)                500
    2 (Load Balance)                1000
    2 (Load Balance)                2000
    2 (Load Balance)                5000
    100                             100
    500                             500
    1000                            1000
    2000                            2000

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 31] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

A.2. FRR VPN Table

    No. of Head-End TE Tunnels      VPNv4 Prefixes
    1                               100
    1                               500
    1                               1000
    1                               2000
    1                               5000
    1                               10000
    1                               20000
    1                               Max
    2 (Load Balance)                100
    2 (Load Balance)                500
    2 (Load Balance)                1000
    2 (Load Balance)                2000
    2 (Load Balance)                5000
    2 (Load Balance)                10000
    2 (Load Balance)                20000
    2 (Load Balance)                Max

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 32] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

A.3. FRR Midpoint LSP Table

 The number of midpoint TE LSPs could be configured at recommended
 levels -- 100, 500, 1000, 2000, or max supported number.

A.4. FRR VC Table

    No. of Head-End TE Tunnels      VC entries
    1                               100
    1                               500
    1                               1000
    1                               2000
    1                               Max
    100                             100
    500                             500
    1000                            1000
    2000                            2000

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 33] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

Appendix B. Abbreviations

 AIS      - Alarm Indication Signal
 BFD      - Bidirectional Fault Detection
 BGP      - Border Gateway Protocol
 BKP      - Backup Path and Nodes
 CE       - Customer Edge
 DUT      - Device Under Test
 FRR      - Fast Reroute
 HE       - Head-End
 IGP      - Interior Gateway Protocol
 IP       - Internet Protocol
 LOS      - Loss of Signal
 LSP      - Label Switched Path
 MID      - Midpoint
 MP       - Merge Point
 MPLS     - Multiprotocol Label Switching
 N-Nhop   - Next - Next Hop
 Nhop     - Next Hop
 OIR      - Online Insertion and Removal
 P        - Provider
 PE       - Provider Edge
 PHP      - Penultimate Hop Popping
 PLBM     - Packet-Loss-Based Method
 PLR      - Point of Local Repair
 PRI      - Primary Path
 RSVP     - Resource reSerVation Protocol
 RX       - Receive
 SRLG     - Shared Risk Link Group
 TA       - Traffic Analyzer
 TBM      - Timestamp-Based Method
 TE       - Traffic Engineering
 TG       - Traffic Generator
 TX       - Transmit
 UR       - Upstream Router
 VC       - Virtual Circuit
 VPN      - Virtual Private Network

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 34] RFC 6894 MPLS Protection Mechanisms March 2013

Authors' Addresses

 Rajiv Papneja
 Huawei Technologies
 2330 Central Expressway
 Santa Clara, CA  95050
 USA
 EMail: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com
 Samir Vapiwala
 Cisco Systems
 300 Beaver Brook Road
 Boxborough, MA  01719
 USA
 EMail: svapiwal@cisco.com
 Jay Karthik
 Cisco Systems
 300 Beaver Brook Road
 Boxborough, MA  01719
 USA
 EMail: jkarthik@cisco.com
 Scott Poretsky
 Allot Communications
 300 TradeCenter
 Woburn, MA  01801
 USA
 EMail: sporetsky@allot.com
 Shankar Rao
 Qwest Communications
 950 17th Street
 Suite 1900
 Denver, CO  80210
 USA
 EMail: shankar.rao@du.edu
 JL. Le Roux
 France Telecom
 2 av Pierre Marzin
 22300 Lannion
 France
 EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange.com

Papneja, et al. Informational [Page 35]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6894.txt · Last modified: 2013/03/14 17:59 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki