GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7501

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Davids Request for Comments: 7501 Illinois Institute of Technology Category: Informational V. Gurbani ISSN: 2070-1721 Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent

                                                           S. Poretsky
                                                  Allot Communications
                                                            April 2015

Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices:

                Basic Session Setup and Registration

Abstract

 This document provides a terminology for benchmarking the Session
 Initiation Protocol (SIP) performance of devices.  Methodology
 related to benchmarking SIP devices is described in the companion
 methodology document (RFC 7502).  Using these two documents,
 benchmarks can be obtained and compared for different types of
 devices such as SIP Proxy Servers, Registrars, and Session Border
 Controllers.  The term "performance" in this context means the
 capacity of the Device Under Test (DUT) to process SIP messages.
 Media streams are used only to study how they impact the signaling
 behavior.  The intent of the two documents is to provide a normalized
 set of tests that will enable an objective comparison of the capacity
 of SIP devices.  Test setup parameters and a methodology are
 necessary because SIP allows a wide range of configurations and
 operational conditions that can influence performance benchmark
 measurements.  A standard terminology and methodology will ensure
 that benchmarks have consistent definitions and were obtained
 following the same procedures.

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/rfc7501.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 3.  Term Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.1.  Protocol Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.1.  Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.2.  Signaling Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.3.  Media Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.4.  Associated Media  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.5.  Overload  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.6.  Session Attempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.7.  Established Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.8.  Session Attempt Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.2.  Test Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.1.  Emulated Agent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.2.  Signaling Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.2.3.  SIP Transport Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.3.  Test Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.1.  Session Attempt Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.2.  Establishment Threshold Time  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.3.  Session Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.3.4.  Media Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.3.5.  Codec Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   3.4.  Benchmarks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.4.1.  Session Establishment Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.4.2.  Registration Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.4.3.  Registration Attempt Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
 5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1. Introduction

 Service Providers and IT organizations deliver Voice Over IP (VoIP)
 and multimedia network services based on the IETF Session Initiation
 Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261].  SIP is a signaling protocol originally
 intended to be used to dynamically establish, disconnect, and modify
 streams of media between end users.  As it has evolved, it has been
 adopted for use in a growing number of services and applications.
 Many of these result in the creation of a media session, but some do
 not.  Examples of this latter group include text messaging and
 subscription services.  The set of benchmarking terms provided in
 this document is intended for use with any SIP-enabled device

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 performing SIP functions in the interior of the network, whether or
 not these result in the creation of media sessions.  The performance
 of end-user devices is outside the scope of this document.
 A number of networking devices have been developed to support SIP-
 based VoIP services.  These include SIP servers, Session Border
 Controllers (SBCs), and Back-to-back User Agents (B2BUAs).  These
 devices contain a mix of voice and IP functions whose performance may
 be reported using metrics defined by the equipment manufacturer or
 vendor.  The Service Provider or IT organization seeking to compare
 the performance of such devices will not be able to do so using these
 vendor-specific metrics, whose conditions of test and algorithms for
 collection are often unspecified.
 SIP functional elements and the devices that include them can be
 configured many different ways and can be organized into various
 topologies.  These configuration and topological choices impact the
 value of any chosen signaling benchmark.  Unless these conditions of
 test are defined, a true comparison of performance metrics across
 multiple vendor implementations will not be possible.
 Some SIP-enabled devices terminate or relay media as well as
 signaling.  The processing of media by the device impacts the
 signaling performance.  As a result, the conditions of test must
 include information as to whether or not the Device Under Test
 processes media.  If the device processes media during the test, a
 description of the media must be provided.  This document and its
 companion methodology document [RFC7502] provide a set of black-box
 benchmarks for describing and comparing the performance of devices
 that incorporate the SIP User Agent Client and Server functions and
 that operate in the network's core.
 The definition of SIP performance benchmarks necessarily includes
 definitions of Test Setup Parameters and a test methodology.  These
 enable the Tester to perform benchmarking tests on different devices
 and to achieve comparable results.  This document provides a common
 set of definitions for Test Components, Test Setup Parameters, and
 Benchmarks.  All the benchmarks defined are black-box measurements of
 the SIP signaling plane.  The Test Setup Parameters and Benchmarks
 defined in this document are intended for use with the companion
 methodology document.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

1.1. Scope

 The scope of this document is summarized as follows:
 o  This terminology document describes SIP signaling performance
    benchmarks for black-box measurements of SIP networking devices.
    Stress conditions and debugging scenarios are not addressed in
    this document.
 o  The DUT must be network equipment that is RFC 3261 capable.  This
    may be a Registrar, Redirect Server, or Stateful Proxy.  This
    document does not require the intermediary to assume the role of a
    stateless proxy.  A DUT may also act as a B2BUA or take the role
    of an SBC.
 o  The Tester acts as multiple Emulated Agents (EAs) that initiate
    (or respond to) SIP messages as session endpoints and source (or
    receive) associated media for established connections.
 o  Regarding SIP signaling in presence of media:
  • The media performance is not benchmarked.
  • Some tests require media, but the use of media is limited to

observing the performance of SIP signaling. Tests that require

       media will annotate the media characteristics as a condition of
       test.
  • The type of DUT dictates whether the associated media streams

traverse the DUT. Both scenarios are within the scope of this

       document.
  • SIP is frequently used to create media streams; the signaling

plane and media plane are treated as orthogonal to each other

       in this document.  While many devices support the creation of
       media streams, benchmarks that measure the performance of these
       streams are outside the scope of this document and its
       companion methodology document [RFC7502].  Tests may be
       performed with or without the creation of media streams.  The
       presence or absence of media streams MUST be noted as a
       condition of the test, as the performance of SIP devices may
       vary accordingly.  Even if the media is used during
       benchmarking, only the SIP performance will be benchmarked, not
       the media performance or quality.
 o  Both INVITE and non-INVITE scenarios (registrations) are addressed
    in this document.  However, benchmarking SIP presence or
    subscribe-notify extensions is not a part of this document.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 o  Different transport -- such as UDP, TCP, SCTP, or TLS -- may be
    used.  The specific transport mechanism MUST be noted as a
    condition of the test, as the performance of SIP devices may vary
    accordingly.
 o  REGISTER and INVITE requests may be challenged or remain
    unchallenged for authentication purposes.  Whether or not the
    REGISTER and INVITE requests are challenged is a condition of test
    that will be recorded along with other such parameters that may
    impact the SIP performance of the device or system under test.
 o  Re-INVITE requests are not considered within the scope of this
    document since the benchmarks for INVITEs are based on the dialog
    created by the INVITE and not on the transactions that take place
    within that dialog.
 o  Only session establishment is considered for the performance
    benchmarks.  Session disconnect is not considered within the scope
    of this document.  This is because our goal is to determine the
    maximum capacity of the device or system under test, that is, the
    number of simultaneous SIP sessions that the device or system can
    support.  It is true that there are BYE requests being created
    during the test process.  These transactions do contribute to the
    load on the device or system under test and thus are accounted for
    in the metric we derive.  We do not seek a separate metric for the
    number of BYE transactions a device or system can support.
 o  Scenarios that are specific to the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)
    are not considered, but test cases can be applied with 3GPP-
    specific SIP signaling and the Proxy-Call Session Control Function
    (P-CSCF) as a DUT.
 o  The benchmarks described in this document are intended for a
    laboratory environment and are not intended to be used on a
    production network.  Some of the benchmarks send enough traffic
    that a denial-of-service attack is possible if used in production
    networks.

2. Terminology

 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
 [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.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 For the sake of clarity and continuity, this document adopts the
 template for definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242 [RFC1242].
 The term "Device Under Test (DUT)" is defined in Section 3.1.1 of RFC
 2285 [RFC2285].
 Many commonly used SIP terms in this document are defined in RFC 3261
 [RFC3261].  For convenience, the most important of these are
 reproduced below.  Use of these terms in this document is consistent
 with their corresponding definition in the base SIP specification
 [RFC3261] as amended by [RFC4320], [RFC5393], and [RFC6026].
 o  Call Stateful: A proxy is call stateful if it retains state for a
    dialog from the initiating INVITE to the terminating BYE request.
    A call stateful proxy is always transaction stateful, but the
    converse is not necessarily true.
 o  Stateful Proxy: A logical entity, as defined by [RFC3261], that
    maintains the client and server transaction state machines during
    the processing of a request.  (Also known as a transaction
    stateful proxy.)  The behavior of a stateful proxy is further
    defined in Section 16 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] .  A transaction
    stateful proxy is not the same as a call stateful proxy.
 o  Back-to-Back User Agent: A back-to-back user agent (B2BUA) is a
    logical entity that receives a request and processes it as a user
    agent server (UAS).  In order to determine how the request should
    be answered, it acts as a user agent client (UAC) and generates
    requests.  Unlike a proxy server, it maintains dialog state and
    must participate in all requests sent on the dialogs it has
    established.  Since it is a concatenation of a UAC and a UAS, no
    explicit definitions are needed for its behavior.

3. Term Definitions

3.1. Protocol Components

3.1.1. Session

 Definition:
    The combination of signaling and media messages and associated
    processing that enable a single SIP-based audio or video call, or
    SIP registration.
 Discussion:
    The term "session" commonly implies a media session.  In this
    document the term is extended to cover the signaling and any media
    specified and invoked by the corresponding signaling.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Media Plane
    Signaling Plane
    Associated Media

3.1.2. Signaling Plane

 Definition:
    The plane in which SIP messages [RFC3261] are exchanged between
    SIP agents [RFC3261].
 Discussion:
    SIP messages are used to establish sessions in several ways:
    directly between two User Agents [RFC3261], through a Proxy Server
    [RFC3261], or through a series of Proxy Servers.  The Session
    Description Protocol (SDP) is included in the Signaling Plane.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Media Plane
    Emulated Agent

3.1.3. Media Plane

 Definition:
    The data plane in which one or more media streams and their
    associated media control protocols (e.g., RTCP [RFC3550]) are
    exchanged between User Agents after a media connection has been
    created by the exchange of signaling messages in the Signaling
    Plane.
 Discussion:
    Media may also be known as the "bearer channel".  The Media Plane
    MUST include the media control protocol, if one is used, and the
    media stream(s).  Examples of media are audio and video.  The
    media streams are described in the SDP of the Signaling Plane.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Signaling Plane

3.1.4. Associated Media

 Definition:
    Media that corresponds to an 'm' line in the SDP payload of the
    Signaling Plane.
 Discussion:
    The format of the media is determined by the SDP attributes for
    the corresponding 'm' line.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.

3.1.5. Overload

 Definition:
    Overload is defined as the state where a SIP server does not have
    sufficient resources to process all incoming SIP messages
    [RFC6357].
 Discussion:
    The distinction between an overload condition and other failure
    scenarios is outside the scope of black-box testing and of this
    document.  Under overload conditions, all or a percentage of
    Session Attempts will fail due to lack of resources.  In black-box
    testing, the cause of the failure is not explored.  The fact that
    a failure occurred for whatever reason will trigger the tester to
    reduce the offered load, as described in the companion methodology
    document [RFC7502].  SIP server resources may include CPU
    processing capacity, network bandwidth, input/output queues, or
    disk resources.  Any combination of resources may be fully
    utilized when a SIP server (the DUT) is in the overload condition.
    For proxy-only (or intermediary) devices, it is expected that the
    proxy will be driven into overload based on the delivery rate of
    signaling requests.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 Measurement Units:
    N/A.

3.1.6. Session Attempt

 Definition:
    A SIP INVITE or REGISTER request sent by the EA that has not
    received a final response.
 Discussion:
    The attempted session may be either an invitation to an audio/
    video communication or a registration attempt.  When counting the
    number of session attempts, we include all requests that are
    rejected for lack of authentication information.  The EA needs to
    record the total number of session attempts including those
    attempts that are routinely rejected by a proxy that requires the
    UA to authenticate itself.  The EA is provisioned to deliver a
    specific number of session attempts per second.  But the EA must
    also count the actual number of session attempts per given time
    interval.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Session
    Session Attempt Rate

3.1.7. Established Session

 Definition:
    A SIP session for which the EA acting as the UA has received a 200
    OK message.
 Discussion:
    An Established Session may be either an invitation to an audio/
    video communication or a registration attempt.  Early dialogs for
    INVITE requests are out of scope for this work.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 See Also:
    None.

3.1.8. Session Attempt Failure

 Definition:
    A session attempt that does not result in an Established Session.
 Discussion:
    The session attempt failure may be indicated by the following
    observations at the EA:
    1.  Receipt of a SIP 3xx-, 4xx-, 5xx-, or 6xx-class response to a
        Session Attempt.
    2.  The lack of any received SIP response to a Session Attempt
        within the Establishment Threshold Time (cf. Section 3.3.2).
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Session Attempt

3.2. Test Components

3.2.1. Emulated Agent

 Definition:
    A device in the test topology that initiates/responds to SIP
    messages as one or more session endpoints and, wherever
    applicable, sources/receives Associated Media for Established
    Sessions.
 Discussion:
    The EA functions in the Signaling and Media Planes.  The Tester
    may act as multiple EAs.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 See Also:
    Media Plane
    Signaling Plane
    Established Session
    Associated Media

3.2.2. Signaling Server

 Definition:
    Device in the test topology that facilitates the creation of
    sessions between EAs.  This device is the DUT.
 Discussion:
    The DUT is a network intermediary that is RFC 3261 capable such as
    a Registrar, Redirect Server, Stateful Proxy, B2BUA, or SBC.
 Measurement Units:
    N/A.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Signaling Plane

3.2.3. SIP Transport Protocol

 Definition:
    The protocol used for transport of the Signaling Plane messages.
 Discussion:
    Performance benchmarks may vary for the same SIP networking device
    depending upon whether TCP, UDP, TLS, SCTP, websockets [RFC7118],
    or any future transport-layer protocol is used.  For this reason,
    it is necessary to measure the SIP Performance Benchmarks using
    these various transport protocols.  Performance Benchmarks MUST
    report the SIP Transport Protocol used to obtain the benchmark
    results.
 Measurement Units:
    While these are not units of measure, they are attributes that are
    one of many factors that will contribute to the value of the
    measurements to be taken.  TCP, UDP, SCTP, TLS over TCP, TLS over
    UDP, TLS over SCTP, and websockets are among the possible values
    to be recorded as part of the test.
 Issues:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 See Also:
    None.

3.3. Test Setup Parameters

3.3.1. Session Attempt Rate

 Definition:
    Configuration of the EA for the number of sessions per second
    (sps) that the EA attempts to establish using the services of the
    DUT.
 Discussion:
    The Session Attempt Rate is the number of sessions per second that
    the EA sends toward the DUT.  Some of the sessions attempted may
    not result in a session being established.
 Measurement Units:
    Session Attempts per second
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    Session
    Session Attempt

3.3.2. Establishment Threshold Time

 Definition:
    Configuration of the EA that represents the amount of time that an
    EA client will wait for a response from an EA server before
    declaring a Session Attempt Failure.
 Discussion:
    This time duration is test dependent.
    It is RECOMMENDED that the Establishment Threshold Time value be
    set to Timer B or Timer F as specified in RFC 3261, Table 4
    [RFC3261].
 Measurement Units:
    seconds
 Issues:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 See Also:
    None.

3.3.3. Session Duration

 Definition:
    Configuration of the EA that represents the amount of time that
    the SIP dialog is intended to exist between the two EAs associated
    with the test.
 Discussion:
    The time at which the BYE is sent will control the Session
    Duration.
 Measurement Units:
    seconds
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    None.

3.3.4. Media Packet Size

 Definition:
    Configuration on the EA for a fixed number of frames or samples to
    be sent in each RTP packet of the media stream when the test
    involves Associated Media.
 Discussion:
    This document describes a method to measure SIP performance.  If
    the DUT is processing media as well as SIP messages the media
    processing will potentially slow down the SIP processing and lower
    the SIP performance metric.  The tests with associated media are
    designed for audio codecs, and the assumption was made that larger
    media packets would require more processor time.  This document
    does not define parameters applicable to video codecs.
    For a single benchmark test, media sessions use a defined number
    of samples or frames per RTP packet.  If two SBCs, for example,
    used the same codec but one puts more frames into the RTP packet,
    this might cause variation in the performance benchmark results.
 Measurement Units:
    An integer number of frames or samples, depending on whether a
    hybrid- or sample-based codec is used, respectively.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    None.

3.3.5. Codec Type

 Definition:
    The name of the codec used to generate the media session.
 Discussion:
    For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the same size packet
    for media streams.  The size of packets can cause a variation in
    the performance benchmark measurements.
 Measurement Units:
    This is a textual name (alphanumeric) assigned to uniquely
    identify the codec.
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    None.

3.4. Benchmarks

3.4.1. Session Establishment Rate

 Definition:
    The maximum value of the Session Attempt Rate that the DUT can
    handle for an extended, predefined period with zero failures.
 Discussion:
    This benchmark is obtained with zero failure.  The Session Attempt
    Rate provisioned on the EA is raised and lowered as described in
    the algorithm in the accompanying methodology document [RFC7502],
    until a traffic load over the period of time necessary to attempt
    N sessions completes without failure, where N is a parameter
    specified in the algorithm and recorded in the Test Setup Report.
 Measurement Units:
    sessions per second (sps)
 Issues:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 See Also:
    Session Attempt Rate

3.4.2. Registration Rate

 Definition:
    The maximum value of the Registration Attempt Rate that the DUT
    can handle for an extended, predefined period with zero failures.
 Discussion:
    This benchmark is obtained with zero failures.  The registration
    rate provisioned on the Emulated Agent is raised and lowered as
    described in the algorithm in the companion methodology document
    [RFC7502], until a traffic load consisting of registration
    attempts at the given attempt rate over the period of time
    necessary to attempt N registrations completes without failure,
    where N is a parameter specified in the algorithm and recorded in
    the Test Setup Report.
    This benchmark is described separately from the Session
    Establishment Rate (Section 3.4.1), although it could be
    considered a special case of that benchmark, since a REGISTER
    request is a request for a session that is not initiated by an
    INVITE request.  It is defined separately because it is a very
    important benchmark for most SIP installations.  An example
    demonstrating its use is an avalanche restart, where hundreds of
    thousands of endpoints register simultaneously following a power
    outage.  In such a case, an authoritative measurement of the
    capacity of the device to register endpoints is useful to the
    network designer.  Additionally, in certain controlled networks,
    there appears to be a difference between the registration rate of
    new endpoints and the registering rate of existing endpoints
    (register refreshes).  This benchmark can capture these
    differences as well.
 Measurement Units:
    registrations per second (rps)
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    None.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

3.4.3. Registration Attempt Rate

 Definition:
    Configuration of the EA for the number of registrations per second
    that the EA attempts to send to the DUT.
 Discussion:
    The Registration Attempt Rate is the number of registration
    requests per second that the EA sends toward the DUT.
 Measurement Units:
    registrations per second (rps)
 Issues:
    None.
 See Also:
    None.

4. Security Considerations

 Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of the
 Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
 performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
 Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media layer
 are discussed in RFC 3261 [RFC3261], RFC 3550 [RFC3550], and RFC 3711
 [RFC3711].  This document attempts to formalize a set of common
 terminology for benchmarking SIP networks.  Packets with unintended
 and/or unauthorized DSCP or IP precedence values may present security
 issues.  Determining the security consequences of such packets is out
 of scope for this document.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

5. References

5.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
            A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
            Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
            June 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
 [RFC5393]  Sparks, R., Ed., Lawrence, S., Hawrylyshen, A., and B.
            Campen, "Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in
            Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking Proxies", RFC
            5393, December 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5393>.
 [RFC4320]  Sparks, R., "Actions Addressing Identified Issues with the
            Session Initiation Protocol's (SIP) Non-INVITE
            Transaction", RFC 4320, January 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4320>.
 [RFC6026]  Sparks, R. and T. Zourzouvillys, "Correct Transaction
            Handling for 2xx Responses to Session Initiation Protocol
            (SIP) INVITE Requests", RFC 6026, September 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6026>.
 [RFC7502]  Davids, C., Gurbani, V., and S. Poretsky, "Terminology for
            Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices:
            Basic Session Setup and Registration", RFC 7502, April
            2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7502>.

5.2. Informative References

 [RFC2285]  Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
            Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>.
 [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
            Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
 [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
            Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
            Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

 [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
            Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
            RFC 3711, March 2004,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
 [RFC6357]  Hilt, V., Noel, E., Shen, C., and A. Abdelal, "Design
            Considerations for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
            Overload Control", RFC 6357, August 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6357>.
 [RFC7118]  Baz Castillo, I., Millan Villegas, J., and V. Pascual,
            "The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session
            Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7118, January 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7118>.

Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to thank Keith Drage, Cullen Jennings, Daryl
 Malas, Al Morton, and Henning Schulzrinne for invaluable
 contributions to this document.  Dale Worley provided an extensive
 review that lead to improvements in the documents.  We are grateful
 to Barry Constantine, William Cerveny, and Robert Sparks for
 providing valuable comments during the documents' last calls and
 expert reviews.  Al Morton and Sarah Banks have been exemplary
 working group chairs; we thank them for tracking this work to
 completion.

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 7501 SIP Benchmarking Terminology April 2015

Authors' Addresses

 Carol Davids
 Illinois Institute of Technology
 201 East Loop Road
 Wheaton, IL  60187
 United States
 Phone: +1 630 682 6024
 EMail: davids@iit.edu
 Vijay K. Gurbani
 Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
 1960 Lucent Lane
 Rm 9C-533
 Naperville, IL  60566
 United States
 Phone: +1 630 224 0216
 EMail: vkg@bell-labs.com
 Scott Poretsky
 Allot Communications
 300 TradeCenter, Suite 4680
 Woburn, MA  08101
 United States
 Phone: +1 508 309 2179
 EMail: sporetsky@allot.com

Davids, et al. Informational [Page 20]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7501.txt · Last modified: 2015/04/13 23:29 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki