From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Mon Apr 10 15:12:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03658 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:12:52 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05584 for x-bmwg-include; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.cluster.oleane.net (smtp1.cluster.oleane.net [195.25.12.16]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05561 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oleane (dyn-1-2-129.Vin.dialup.oleane.fr [194.2.4.129]) by smtp1.cluster.oleane.net with SMTP id PAA40731; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:05:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000f01bfa2ec$d7828520$0401a8c0@oleane.com> From: "Peter Lewis" To: Subject: IP Policing 2000 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:00:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFA2FD.79104C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFA2FD.79104C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IP Policing 2000, Paris, 12-15 September =20 The need to police IP networks has grown in importance with the rise of = a new generation of applications such as VPNs, VoIP or IPSec. Approaches under consideration include COPS, DEN/LDAP and PIB, but their = ultimate potential remains undecided. =20 See: http://www.upperside.fr/baippol.htm ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFA2FD.79104C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
IP Policing 2000, Paris, = 12-15=20 September
 
The need to police IP = networks has=20 grown in importance with the rise of a new generation of applications = such as=20 VPNs, VoIP or IPSec.
Approaches under consideration include COPS, = DEN/LDAP=20 and PIB, but their ultimate potential remains undecided.
 
See:
http://www.upperside.fr/baip= pol.htm
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BFA2FD.79104C00-- From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 13 15:09:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11631 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:09:28 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23655 for x-bmwg-include; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:06:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23590 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.235.183]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000413130540.IUNV6491.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: <38F5C4DF.25D7F02A@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:00:15 -0400 From: "Cynthia E. Martin" Organization: Advanced Network Consultants, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pyda Srisuresh CC: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-atm-method-01.txt References: <20000401050034.29158.qmail@web1406.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk Suresh, We have not written those sections yet. We hope that those sections will be completed for the next version of the ID. Regards, Cynthia Pyda Srisuresh wrote: > Hi, > > The subject draft makes references to appendices A, B and C. > But, I couldnt find any of the appendix matter in the draft. > Is there some place I can find these? Thanks. > > regards, > suresh > > ===== > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 20 00:42:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17900 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:42:01 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21175 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20543; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38FE354A.6D10685D@ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:38:02 -0400 From: Kevin Dubray Reply-To: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com Organization: IronBridge Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: minutes@ietf.org CC: Randy Bush , Bert Wijnen , kdubray , bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: BMWG Minutes of 47th IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk Below are the unedited minutes from the BMWG session at the Adelaide IETF. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Benchmarking Methodology WG Minutes WG Chair: Kevin Dubray Minutes reported by Cynthia Martin. 1. Administrative Overview. Kevin Dubray provided an overview of the meeting agenda. No questions or comments were given from the audience. 2. Overview of ID "ATM ABR Benchmarking Terminology". Jeff Dunn provided an overview of the "ATM ABR Benchmarking Terminology" ID including updates and changes to the ID from previous versions. There is interest in the group to create an "ATM ABR Benchmarking Methodology" ID, but no proposed dates or timelines were discussed. Jeff requested that anyone interested in creating the methodology ID should contact Jeff at Jeffrey.Dunn@worldnet.att.net or via the BMWG mailing list. We need people with operational experience to provide input. The "ATM ABR Benchmarking Terminology" ID will go into last call after this BMWG meeting if no comments or questions are raised. 3. Overview of ID "Frame Relay Benchmarking Terminology". Jeff Dunn provided an overview of the "Frame Relay Benchmarking Terminology" ID including updates and changes to the ID from previous versions. The comment was made to add additional PDH (DS-3) and ADSL information in this ID or to create a new ID. This issue will be put on the list so everyone may comment on what they feel is the appropriate solution. The authors believe that a separate ID should be created for ADSL. The "Frame Relay Benchmarking Terminology" ID will go into last call after this BMWG meeting if no comments or questions are raised. 4. Overview of ID "ATM Benchmarking Methodology". Jeff Dunn provided an overview of the "ATM Benchmarking Methodology " ID including updates and changes to the ID from previous versions. Many comments and questions were raised including: a) Should the required histograms be normalized or absolute? After a discussion, it was decided that both should be available to the user and that a uniform format is more important. The ID will reflect this decision. b) How do we test cell rate margin? The Cell Rate Margin is defined the terminology ID, but we have not come up with a good test scenario for this. The authors would like to remove this test from the ID. c) The filter definitions are still not defined. Should we include them in the ID? Are the filters for ATM or IP? Does it effect throughput? These questions will be put on the list so everyone may comment. We need an answer to these for the final version of the ID. The authors would like to remove this from the ID. The "ATM Benchmarking Methodology" ID will go under one more revision before the next IETF and then into last call. 5. Overview of IP QOS ID proposal Jerry Perser provided an overview of the "IP QOS" ID. Many comments and questions were raised including: a) Many people are interested in the ID, but who is willing to work and comment on it? b) IP QOS is not defined or understood, how will this ID be developed? c) Should we address DIFFSERV? How does this interact with IP QOS? DIFF SERV does not define specific metrics or yardsticks for service agreements. How will this effect the development of the ID? d) Should we address RSVP? How does this interact with IP QOS? e) Should we address TOS? How does this interact with IP QOS? f) Should this be a configuration effort, referring to other work and re- interpreting existing metrics? g) Should we also address IP over ATM QOS and IP over Frame Relay QOS to narrow the scope? h) Is this tied to certain mechanisms and algorithms? i) Is this ingress traffic policing or something else on the egress? Is this traffic policing conformance? The attendees agreed that the goals of the proposal need to be reworked and articulated to the BMWG mailing list. 6. Overview of Routing Metrics proposals a) Guy Trotter provided an overview of the proposed "Forwarding Performance based on Forwarding Table Size" ID. A few questions were raised including: i. Will the ID address forwarding table or route table? The author clarified that the ID will address forwarding table only, the nomenclature needs to be consistent. ii. Will the ID address issues like how soon after the routing distribution is complete will traffic forwarding occur? The ID needs to address this. iii. Will the ID address the effects of how the routing entries are placed into the table and if it effects traffic forwarding? What are the boundaries on the ID? The ID needs to address this. b) Jeff Dunn provided an overview of the proposed "Framework for IPv4 Routing Benchmarking" ID and "IPv4 Routing Metrics" ID. A few questions were raised including: i. Will the ID address MPLS or QOS? The author clarified that the ID will not address QOS that is for the QOS ID discussed earlier. The ID will not address MPLS at this time. This will be put on the list so everyone may comment. The authors believe that MPLS should be discussed in another ID, similar to the ATM and Frame Relay ID's. ii. What is the scope of the ID? The ID needs to be very clear. With more people working in the ID, the authors believe that a clearly defined, well-scoped ID can be created. iii. Does this proposed ID overlap with the proposed "Forwarding Performance based on Forwarding Table Size" ID? Yes. The proposed "Forwarding Performance based on Forwarding Table Size" is dependent on the proposed "Framework for IPv4 Routing Benchmarking", but they can be developed in parallel. The framework is necessary to develop all other router based benchmarking ID's. c) Although a consensus was not taken, the group agreed that both proposals could be developed at the same time. Since the BMWG meeting, the authors of both ID's decided to work together on the "Framework for IPv4 Routing Benchmarking" ID. A first draft of this ID should be available in 1-2 months from the BMWG meeting date. A first draft of the proposed "Forwarding Performance based on Forwarding Table Size" ID was not discussed, but after the meeting the author did indicate that a first draft would be available within a few weeks from the BMWG meeting date. From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 20 00:55:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18076 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:55:25 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19804 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19768 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38FE38EF.FAE55184@ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:53:35 -0400 From: Kevin Dubray Reply-To: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com Organization: IronBridge Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: WG Last Call: Router Benchmark Proposals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk BMWG, Previously, two proposals on Router Benchmarking had been offered to the BMWG for consideration as new work items. In short, one proposal was for a specific set of router metrics regarding the benchmarking of forwarding capability as a function of forwarding table manipulation; the other proposal offered the determination of a framework document outlining future router benchmarking work. The detailed proposals can be found from the BMWG mailing list archive: http://www.alvestrand.no/archives/bmwg/bmwg.0003 As the minutes indicate, there was a discussion that addressed the possible actions on the _approaches_ suggested by each proposal - 1) work on the proposed, narrow router benchmarking area, 2) work on determining a more comprehensive framework for router benchmarks to assist in scoping, 3) undertake both proposals, or 4) undertake none of the proposals. It was the general impression of the meeting's attendees that because the Forwarding Table-based Router benchmarks could be a valid subset of Framework effort, both exercises could and should be undertaken in parallel. If anyone feels that THIS WORK SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN as described earlier on this list, please SEND EMAIL to the list or kdubray@ibnets.com with any technical concerns, no later than 27 April 00. Thanks. From kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com Fri Apr 21 19:04:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03488 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:03:59 +0200 Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10686 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <390089E7.24924B37@ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:35 -0400 From: Kevin Dubray Reply-To: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com Organization: IronBridge Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bmwg archive Subject: BMWG I-D revision: ] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Network Working Group R. Mandeville Internet-Draft European Network Laboratories Expiration Date: October 2000 J. Perser Netcom Systems April 2000 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Frame formats and sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1 Fully meshed throughput, frame loss and forwarding rates . . 4 5.2 Partially meshed one-to-many/many-to-one . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3 Partially meshed multiple devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4 Partially meshed unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5 Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6 Forward Pressure and Maximum Forwarding Rate . . . . . . . . 19 5.7 Address caching capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.8 Address learning rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.9 Errored frames filtering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.10 Broadcast frame Forwarding and Latency . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix A: Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix B: Generating Offered Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Mandeville, Perser [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 1. Introduction This document is intended to provide methodology for the benchmarking of local area network (LAN) switching devices. It extends the methodology already defined for benchmarking network interconnecting devices in RFC 2544 [3] to switching devices. This RFC primarily deals with devices which switch frames at the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. It provides a methodology for benchmarking switching devices, forwarding performance, congestion control, latency, address handling and filtering. In addition to defining the tests, this document also describes specific formats for reporting the results of the tests. A previous document, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices" [2], defined many of the terms that are used in this document. The terminology document SHOULD be consulted before attempting to make use of this document. 2. Requirements The following RFCs SHOULD be consulted before attempting to make use of this document: RFC 1242 [1], RFC 2285 [2], and RFC 2544 [3]. For the sake of clarity and continuity, this RFC adopts the template for benchmarking tests set out in Section 26 of RFC 2544. 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 RFC 2119. 3. Test setup This document extends the general test setup described in section 6 of RFC 2544 [3] to the benchmarking of LAN switching devices. RFC 2544 [3] primarily describes non-meshed traffic where input and output interfaces are grouped in mutually exclusive sending and receiving pairs. In fully meshed traffic, each interface of a DUT/SUT is set up to both receive and transmit frames to all the other interfaces under test. Mandeville, Perser [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Prior to each test run, the DUT/SUT MUST learn the MAC addresses used in the test and the address learning SHOULD be verified. Addresses not learned will be forwarded as flooded frames and reduce the amount of correctly forwarded frames. The rate at which address learning frames are offered may have to be adjusted to be as low as 50 frames per second or even less, to guarantee successful learning. The DUT/SUT address aging time SHOULD be configured to be greater than the period of the learning phase of the test plus the trial duration plus any configuration time required by the testing device. Addresses SHOULD NOT age out until the trial duration is completed. More than one learning trial may be needed for the association of the address to the port to occur. If a DUT/SUT uses a hashing algorithm with address learning, the DUT/SUT may not learn the necessary addresses to perform the tests. The format of the MAC addresses MUST be adjustable so that the address mapping may be re-arranged to ensure that the DUT/SUT learns all the addresses. 4. Frame formats and sizes The test frame format is defined in RFC 2544 section 8 [3] and MUST contain a unique signature field located in the UDP DATA area of the Test Frame (see Appendix C [3]). The purpose of the signature field is filter out frames that are not part of the offered load. The signature field MUST be unique enough to identify the frames not originating from the DUT/SUT. The signature field SHOULD be located after byte 56 (collision window [4] ) or at the end of the frame. The length, contents and method of detection is not defined in this memo. The signature field MAY have a unique identifier per port. This would filter out misforwarded frames. It is possible for a DUT/SUT to strip off the MAC layer, send it through its switching matrix, and transmit it out with the correct destination MAC address but the wrong payload. For frame sizes, refer to RFC 2544, section 9 [3]. There are three possible frame formats for layer 2 Ethernet switches: standard MAC Ethernet frames, standard MAC Ethernet frames with vendor-specific tags added to them, and IEEE 802.3ac frames tagged to accommodate 802.1p&Q. The two types of tagged frames may exceed the standard maximum length frame of 1518 bytes, and may not be accepted by the interface controllers of some DUT/SUTs. It is recommended to check the compatibility of the DUT/SUT with tagged frames before testing. Mandeville, Perser [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Devices switching tagged frames of over 1518 bytes will have a different maximum forwarding rate than untagged frames. 5. Benchmarking Tests The following tests offer objectives, procedures, and reporting formats for benchmarking LAN switching devices. 5.1 Fully meshed throughput, frame loss and forwarding rates 5.1.1 Objective To determine the throughput, frame loss and forwarding rates of DUT/SUTs offered fully meshed traffic as defined in RFC 2285 [2]. 5.1.2 Setup Parameters When offering full meshed traffic, the following parameters MUST be defined. Each parameter is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Interframe Gap (IFG) - The IFG between frames inside a burst MUST be at the minimum specified by the standard (9.6 us for 10Mbps Ethernet, 960 ns for 100Mbps Ethernet, and 96 ns for 1 Gbps Ethernet) of the medium being tested. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theoretical load, regardless of traffic orientation or duplex mode. Certain test configurations will theoretically over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. In half duplex, an ILoad over 50% will over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. Burst Size - The burst size defines the number of frames sent back-to-back at the minimum legal IFG [4] before pausing transmission to receive frames. Burst sizes SHOULD vary between 1 and 930 frames. A burst size of 1 will simulate constant load [1]. Addresses per port - Represents the number of addresses which are being tested for each port. Number of addresses SHOULD be a binary exponential (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...). Recommended value is 1. Mandeville, Perser [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. 5.1.3 Procedure All ports on the tester MUST transmit test frames either in a Frame Based or Time Based mode (Appendix B). All ports SHOULD start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames within 300 milliseconds of each other. Each port in the test MUST send test frames to all other ports in a round robin type fashion. The sequence of addresses MUST NOT change when congestion control is applied. The following table shows how each port in a test MUST transmit test frames to all other ports in the test. In this example, there are six ports with 1 address per port: Source Port Destination Ports (in order of transmission) Port #1 2 3 4 5 6 2... Port #2 3 4 5 6 1 3... Port #3 4 5 6 1 2 4... Port #4 5 6 1 2 3 5... Port #5 6 1 2 3 4 6... Port #6 1 2 3 4 5 1... As shown in the table, there is an equal distribution of destination addresses for each transmit opportunity. This keeps the test balanced so that one destination port is not overloaded by the test algorithm and all ports are equally and fully loaded throughout the test. Not following this algorithm exactly will produce inconsistent results. For tests using multiple addresses per port, the actual port destinations are the same as described above and the actual source/destination address pairs SHOULD be chosen randomly to exercise the DUT/SUT's ability to perform address lookups. For every address, learning frames MUST be sent to the DUT/SUT to allow the DUT/SUT update its address tables properly. 5.1.4 Measurements Each port should receive the same number of test frames that it transmitted. Each receiving port MUST categorize, then count the frames into one of two groups: 1.) Received Frames: received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. 2.) Flood count [2]. Mandeville, Perser [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT (spanning tree, SNMP, RIP, ...) MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. Frame loss rate of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as defined in section 26.3 [3] with the following notes: Frame loss rate SHOULD be measured at the end of the trail duration. The term "rate", for this measurement only, does not imply the units in the fashion of "per second." 5.1.4.1 Throughput Throughput measurement is defined in section 26.1 [3]. A search algorithm is employed to find the maximum Oload [2] with a zero Frame loss rate [1]. The algorithm MUST adjust Iload to find the throughput. 5.1.4.2 Forwarding Rate Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully forward to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Oload MUST also be cited. Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL) MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that a device can successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to the MOL as defined in section 3.6 [2]. The MOL MUST also be cited. Maximum forwarding rate (MFR) MUST be reported as the highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an iterative set of forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements are made by adjusting Iload. The Oload applied to the device MUST also be cited. 5.1.5 Reporting format The results for these tests SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the test results. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph, one plotting the theoretical and one plotting the test results. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. Mandeville, Perser [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.2 Partially meshed one-to-many/many-to-one 5.2.1 Objective To determine the throughput when transmitting from/to multiple ports and to/from one port. As with the fully meshed throughput test, this test is a measure of the capability of the DUT to switch frames without frame loss. Results of this test can be used to determine the ability of the DUT to utilize an Ethernet port when switching traffic from multiple Ethernet ports. 5.2.2 Setup Parameters When offering bursty meshed traffic, the following parameters MUST be defined. Each parameter is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Traffic Direction - Traffic can be generated in one direction, the reverse direction, or both directions. Interframe Gap (IFG) - The IFG between frames inside a burst MUST be at the minimum specified by the standard (9.6 us for 10Mbps Ethernet, 960 ns for 100Mbps Ethernet, and 96 ns for 1 Gbps Ethernet) of the medium being tested. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theoretical load, regardless of traffic orientation or duplex mode. Certain test configurations will theoretically over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. In half duplex bidirectional traffic, an ILoad over 50% will over- subscribe the DUT/SUT. Burst Size - The burst size defines the number of frames sent back-to-back at the minimum legal IFG [4] before pausing transmission to receive frames. Burst sizes SHOULD vary between 1 and 930 frames. A burst size of 1 will simulate constant load [1]. Addresses per port - Represents the number of addresses which are being tested for each port. Number of addresses SHOULD be a binary exponential (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...). Recommended value is 1. Mandeville, Perser [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. 5.2.3 Procedure All ports on the tester MUST transmit test frames either in a Frame Based or Time Based mode (Appendix B). Depending upon traffic direction, some or all of the ports will be transmitting. All ports SHOULD start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames within 300 milliseconds of each other. Test frames transmitted from the Many Ports MUST be destined to the One port. Test frames transmitted from the One Port MUST be destined to the Many ports in a round robin type fashion. See section 5.1.3 for a description of the round robin fashion. For tests using multiple addresses per port, the actual port destinations are the same as described above and the actual source/destination address pairs SHOULD be chosen randomly to exercise the DUT/SUT's ability to perform address lookups. +----------+ | | | Many | <-------- | | \ +----------+ \ \ +----------+ \ +-------------+ | | ------------> | | | Many | <-----------------------> | One | | | ------------> | | +----------+ / +-------------+ / +----------+ / | | / | Many | <------- | | +----------+ For every address, the testing device MUST send learning frames to allow the DUT/SUT to update its address tables properly. Mandeville, Perser [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.2.4 Measurements Each receiving port MUST categorize, then count the frames into one of two groups: 1.) Received Frames: received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. 2.) Flood count [2]. Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Oload MUST also be cited. Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL) MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that a device can successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to the MOL as defined in section 3.6 [2]. The MOL MUST also be cited. Maximum forwarding rate (MFR) MUST be reported as the highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an iterative set of forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements are made by adjusting Iload. The Oload applied to the device MUST also be cited. 5.2.5 Reporting Format The results for these tests SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the test results. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph, one plotting the theoretical and one plotting the test results. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. Mandeville, Perser [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.3 Partially meshed multiple devices 5.3.1 Objective To determine the throughput, frame loss and forwarding rates of two switching devices equipped with multiple ports and one high speed backbone uplink (Gigabit Ethernet, ATM, SONET). 5.3.2 Setup Parameters When offering bursty partially meshed traffic, the following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Interframe Gap (IFG) - The IFG between frames inside a burst MUST be at the minimum specified by the standard (9.6 us for 10Mbps Ethernet, 960 ns for 100Mbps Ethernet, and 96 ns for 1 Gbps Ethernet) of the medium being tested. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theoretical load, regardless of traffic orientation or duplex mode. Certain test configurations will theoretically over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. In half duplex, an ILoad over 50% will over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. Burst Size - The burst size defines the number of frames sent back-to-back at the minimum legal IFG [4] before pausing transmission to receive frames. Burst sizes SHOULD vary between 1 and 930 frames. A burst size of 1 will simulate constant load [1]. Addresses per port - Represents the number of addresses which are being tested for each port. Number of addresses SHOULD be a binary exponential (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...). Recommended value is 1. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Local Traffic - A Boolean value of ON or OFF. The frame sequence algorithm MAY be altered to remove local traffic. With local traffic ON, the algorithm is exactly the same as a fully meshed throughput. With local traffic OFF, the port sends frames to all other ports on the other side of the backbone uplink in a round robin type fashion. 5.3.3 Procedure All ports on the tester MUST transmit test frames either in a Frame Based or Time Based mode (Appendix B). All ports SHOULD start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames with 300 milliseconds of each other. Each port in the test MUST send test frames to all other ports in a round robin type fashion as defined in section 5.1.3. Local traffic MAY be removed from the round robin list in order to send the entire load across the backbone uplink. For tests using multiple addresses per port, the actual port destinations are the same as described above and the actual source/destination address pairs SHOULD be chosen randomly to exercise the DUT/SUT's ability to perform address lookups. For every address, the testing device MUST send learning frames to allow the DUT/SUT to update its address tables properly. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. 5.3.4 Measurements Each receiving port MUST categorize, then count the frames into one of two groups: 1.) Received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. 2.) Flood count [2]. Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. Frame loss rate of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as defined in section 26.3 [3] with the following notes: Frame loss rate SHOULD be measured at the end of the trial duration. The term "rate", for this measurement only, does not imply the units in the fashion of "per second." Mandeville, Perser [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.3.4.1 Throughput Throughput measurement is defined in section 26.1 [3]. A search algorithm is employed to find the maximum Oload [2] with a zero Frame loss rate [1]. The algorithm MUST adjust Iload to find the throughput. 5.3.4.2 Forwarding rate Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully forward to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Oload MUST also be cited. Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL) MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that a device can successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to the MOL as defined in section 3.6 [2]. The MOL MUST also be cited. Maximum forwarding rate (MFR) MUST be reported as the highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an iterative set of forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements are made by adjusting Iload. The Oload applied to the device MUST also be cited. 5.3.5 Reporting format The results for these tests SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the test results. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph, one plotting the theoretical and one plotting the test results. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. Mandeville, Perser [Page 12] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.4 Partially meshed unidirectional traffic 5.4.1 Objective To determine the throughput of the DUT/SUT when presented multiple streams of unidirectional traffic with half of the ports on the DUT/SUT are transmitting frames destined to the other half of the ports. 5.4.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Interframe Gap (IFG) - The IFG between frames inside a burst MUST be at the minimum specified by the standard (9.6 us for 10Mbps Ethernet, 960 ns for 100Mbps Ethernet, and 96 ns for 1 Gbps Ethernet) of the medium being tested. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theoretical load, regardless of traffic orientation or duplex mode. Certain test configurations will theoretically over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. ILoad will not over-subscribe the DUT/SUT in this test. Burst Size - The burst size defines the number of frames sent back-to-back at the minimum legal IFG [4] before pausing transmission to receive frames. Burst sizes SHOULD vary between 1 and 930 frames. A burst size of 1 will simulate constant load [1]. Addresses per port - Represents the number of addresses which are being tested for each port. Number of addresses SHOULD be a binary exponential (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...). Recommended value is 1. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 13] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.4.3 Procedure Ports do not send and receive test frames simultaneously. As a consequence, there should be no collisions unless the DUT is misforwarding frames, generating flooded or Spanning-Tree frames or is enabling some flow control mechanism. Ports used for this test are either transmitting or receiving, but not both. Those ports which are transmitting send test frames destined to addresses corresponding to each of the ports receiving. This creates a unidirectional mesh of traffic. All ports on the tester MUST transmit test frames either in a Frame Based or Time Based mode (Appendix B). All ports SHOULD start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames with 300 milliseconds of each other. Each transmitting port in the test MUST send frames to all receiving ports in a round robin type fashion. The sequence of addresses MUST NOT change when congestion control is applied. The following table shows how each port in a test MUST transmit test frames to all other ports in the test. In this 8 port example, port 1 through 4 are transmitting and ports 5 through 8 are receiving; each with 1 address per port: Source Port, then Destination Ports (in order of transmission) Port #1 5 6 7 8 5 6... Port #2 6 7 8 5 6 7... Port #3 7 8 5 6 7 8... Port #4 8 5 6 7 8 5... As shown in the table, there is an equal distribution of destination addresses for each transmit opportunity. This keeps the test balanced so that one destination port is not overloaded by the test algorithm and all receiving ports are equally and fully loaded throughout the test. Not following this algorithm exactly will product inconsistent results. For tests using multiple addresses per port, the actual port destinations are the same as described above and the actual source/destination address pairs SHOULD be chosen randomly to exercise the DUT/SUT's ability to perform address lookups. For every address, the testing device MUST send learning frames to allow the DUT/SUT to load its address tables properly. The address table's aging time SHOULD be set sufficiently longer than the learning time and trial duration time combined. If the address table ages out during the test, the results will show a lower performing DUT/SUT. Mandeville, Perser [Page 14] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. 5.4.4 Measurements Each receiving port MUST categorize, then count the frames into one of two groups: 1.) Received Frames: received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. 2.) Flood count [2]. Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. Frame loss rate of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as defined in section 26.3 [3] with the following notes: Frame loss rate SHOULD be measured at the end of the trial duration. The term "rate", for this measurement only, does not imply the units in the fashion of "per second." 5.4.4.1 Throughput Throughput measurement is defined in section 26.1 [3]. A search algorithm is employed to find the maximum Oload [2] with a zero Frame loss rate [1]. The algorithm MUST adjust Iload to find the throughput. 5.4.4.2 Forwarding rate Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully forward to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Oload MUST also be cited. Forwarding rate at maximum offered load (FRMOL) MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that a device can successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to the MOL as defined in section 3.6 [2]. The MOL MUST also be cited. Maximum forwarding rate (MFR) MUST be reported as the highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an iterative set of forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements are made by adjusting Iload. The Oload applied to the device MUST also be cited. Mandeville, Perser [Page 15] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.4.5 Reporting format The results for these tests SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the test results. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph, one plotting the theoretical and one plotting the test results. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. 5.5 Congestion Control 5.5.1 Objective To determine how a DUT handles congestion. Does the device implement congestion control and does congestion on one port affect an uncongested port. This procedure determines if Head of Line Blocking and/or Backpressure are present. 5.5.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Interframe Gap (IFG) - The IFG between frames inside a burst MUST be at the minimum specified by the standard (9.6 us for 10Mbps Ethernet, 960 ns for 100Mbps Ethernet, and 96 ns for 1 Gbps Ethernet) of the medium being tested. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. Addresses per port - Represents the number of addresses which are being tested for each port. Number of addresses SHOULD be a binary exponential (i.e. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...). Recommended value is 1. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 16] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.5.3 Procedure This test MUST consist of a multiple of four ports with the same MOL. Four ports are REQUIRED and MAY be expanded to fully utilize the DUT/SUT in increments of four. Each group of four will contain a test block with two of the ports as source transmitters and two of the ports as receivers. The diagram below depicts the flow of traffic between the switch ports: +----------+ 50 % MOL +-------------+ | | ------------------------> | | | | 50 % MOL | uncongested | | | --------- | | +----------+ \ +-------------+ \ \ \ +----------+ \ +-------------+ | | ---------> | | | | 100 % MOL | congested | | | ------------------------> | | +----------+ +-------------+ Both source transmitters MUST transmit the exact number of test frames. The first source MUST transmit test frames at the MOL with the destination address of the two receive ports in an alternating order. The first test frame to the uncongested receive port, second test frame to the congested receive port, then repeat. The second source transmitter MUST transmit test frames at the MOL only to the congested receive port. Both receive ports SHOULD distinguish between test frames originating from the source ports and frames originating from the DUT/SUT. Only test frames from the source ports SHOULD be counted. The uncongested receive port should be receiving at a rate of half the MOL. The number of test frames received on the uncongested port SHOULD be 50% of the test frames transmitted by the first source transmitter. The congested receive port should be receiving at the MOL. The number of test frames received on the congested port should be between 100% and 150% of the test frames transmitted by one source transmitter. Test frames destined to uncongested ports in a switch device should not be dropped due to other ports being congested, even if the source is sending to both the congested and uncongested ports. Mandeville, Perser [Page 17] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.5.4 Measurements Any frame received which does not have the correct destination address MUST not be counted as a received frame and SHOULD be counted as part of a flood count. Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. Frame loss rate of the DUT/SUT's congested and uncongested ports MUST be reported as defined in section 26.3 [3] with the following notes: Frame loss rate SHOULD be measured at the end of the trial duration. The term "rate", for this measurement only, does not imply the units in the fashion of "per second." Offered Load to the DUT/SUT MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that the DUT/SUT observed to accept. This may be different that the MOL. Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT's congested and uncongested ports MUST be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to a specified offered load. The offered load MUST also be cited. 5.5.5 Reporting format This test MUST report the frame lost rate at the uncongested port, the forwarding rate (at 50% offered load) at the uncongested port, and the frame lost rate at the congested port. This test MAY report the frame counts transmitted and frame counts received by the DUT/SUT. 5.5.5.1 HOLB If there is frame loss at the uncongested port, "Head of Line" blocking is present. The DUT cannot forward the amount of traffic to the congested port and as a result it is also losing frames destined to the uncongested port. 5.5.5.2 Back Pressure If there is no frame loss on the congested port, then backpressure is present. It should be noted that this test expects the overall load to the congested port to be greater than 100%. Therefore if the load is greater than 100% and no frame loss is detected, then the DUT must be implementing a flow control mechanism. The type of flow control mechanism used is beyond the scope of this memo. Mandeville, Perser [Page 18] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 It should be noted that some DUTs may not be able to handle the 100% load presented at the input port. In this case, there may be frame loss reported at the uncongested port which is due to the load at the input port rather than the congested port's load. If the uncongested frame loss is reported as zero, but the maximum forwarding rate is less than 7440 (for 10Mbps Ethernet), then this may be an indication of congestion control being enforced by the DUT. In this case, the congestion control is affecting the throughput of the uncongested port. If no congestion control is detected, the expected percentage frame loss for the congested port is 33% at 150% overload. It is receiving 100% load from 1 port, and 50% from another, and can only get 100% possible throughput, therefore having a frame loss rate of 33% (150%-50%/150%). 5.6 Forward Pressure and Maximum Forwarding Rate 5.6.1 Objective The Forward Pressure test overloads a DUT/SUT port and measures the output for forward pressure [2]. If the DUT/SUT transmits frames with an interframe gap less than 96 bits (section 4.2.3.2.2 [4]), then forward pressure is detected. The objective of the Maximum Forwarding Rate test is to measure the peak value of the Forwarding Rate when the Offered Load is varied between the throughput [1] and the Maximum Offered Load [2]. 5.6.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. Step Size - The minimum incremental resolution that the Iload will be incremented in frames per second. The smaller the step size, the more accurate the measurement and the more iterations required. As the Iload approaches the MOL, the minimum step size will increase because of gap resolution on the testing device. Mandeville, Perser [Page 19] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.6.3 Procedure 5.6.3.1 Maximum forwarding rate If the Throughput [1] and the MOL [2] are the same, then MFR [2] is equal to the MOL [2]. This test MUST at a minimum be performed in a two-port configuration as described below. Learning frames MUST be sent to allow the DUT/SUT to update its address tables properly. Test frames are transmitted to the first port (port 1) of the DUT/SUT at the Iload. The FR [2] on the second port (port 2) of the DUT/SUT is measured. The Iload is incremented for each Step Size to find the MFR. The algorithm for the test is as follows: CONSTANT MOL = ... frames/sec; {Maximum Offered Load} VARIABLE MFR := 0 frames/sec; {Maximum Forwarding Rate} ILOAD := starting throughput in frames/sec; {offered load} STEP := ... frames/sec; {Step Size} BEGIN ILOAD := ILOAD - STEP; DO BEGIN ILOAD := ILOAD + STEP IF (ILOAD > MOL) THEN BEGIN ILOAD := MOL END AddressLearning; {Port 2 broadcasts with its source address} Transmit(ILOAD); {Port 1 sends frames to Port 2 at Offered load} IF (Port 2 Forwarding Rate > MFR) THEN BEGIN MFR := Port 2 Forwarding Rate; {A higher value than before} END END WHILE (ILOAD < MOL); {ILOAD has reached the MOL value} DONE 5.6.3.2 Minimum Interframe Gap The Minimum Interframe gap test SHOULD, at a minimum, be performed in a two-port configuration as described below. Learning frames MUST be sent to allow the DUT/SUT to update its address tables properly. Test frames SHOULD be transmitted to the first port (port 1) of the DUT/SUT with an interframe gap of 88 bits. This will apply forward pressure to the DUT/SUT and overload it at a rate of one byte per frame. The test frames MUST be constructed with a source address of port 1 and a destination address of port 2. Mandeville, Perser [Page 20] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 The FR on the second port (port 2) of the DUT/SUT is measured. The measured Forwarding Rate should not exceed the medium's maximum theoretical utilization (MOL). 5.6.4 Measurements Port 2 MUST categorize, then count the frames into one of two groups: 1.) Received Frames: received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. 2.) Flood count [2]. Any frame originating from the DUT/SUT MUST not be counted as a received frame. Frames originating from the DUT/SUT MAY be counted as flooded frames or not counted at all. 5.6.5 Reporting format MFR MUST be reported as the highest forwarding rate of a DUT/SUT taken from an iterative set of forwarding rate measurements. The Iload applied to the device MUST also be cited. Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of frames per second that the device is observed to successfully transmit to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Iload MUST be cited and the Oload MAY be recorded. If the FR exceeds the MOL during the Minimum Interframe gap test, this MUST be highlighted with the expression "Forward Pressure detected". 5.7 Address Caching Capacity 5.7.1 Objective To determine the address caching capacity of a LAN switching device as defined in RFC 2285, section 3.8.1 [2]. 5.7.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Age Time - The maximum time that a DUT/SUT will keep a learned address in its forwarding table. Mandeville, Perser [Page 21] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Addresses Learning Rate - The rate at which new addresses are offered to the DUT/SUT to be learned. The rate at which address learning frames are offered may have to be adjusted to be as low as 50 frames per second or even less, to guarantee successful learning. Initial Addresses - The initial number of addresses to start the test with. The number MUST be between 1 and the maximum number supported by the implementation. 5.7.3 Procedure The aging time of the DUT/SUT MUST be known. The aging time MUST be longer than the time necessary to produce frames at the specified rate. If a low frame rate is used for the test, then it may be possible that sending a large amount of frames may actually take longer than the aging time. This test MUST at a minimum be performed in a three-port configuration described below. The test MAY be expanded to fully utilized the DUT/SUT in increments of two or three ports. An increment of two would include an additional Learning port and Test port. An increment of three would include an additional Learning port, Test port, and Monitoring port. The Learning port (Lport) transmits learning frames to the DUT/SUT with varying source addresses and a fixed destination address corresponding to the address of the device connected to the Test port (Tport) of the DUT/SUT. By receiving frames with varying source addresses, the DUT/SUT should learn these new addresses. The source addresses MAY be in sequential order. The Test port (Tport) of the DUT/SUT acts as the receiving port for the learning frames. Test frames will be transmitted back to the addresses learned on the Learning port. The algorithm for this is explained below. The Monitoring port (Mport) on the DUT/SUT acts as a monitoring port to listen for flooded or mis-forwarded frames. If the test spans multiple broadcast domains (VLANs), each broadcast domain REQUIRES a Monitoring port. It is highly recommended that SNMP, Spanning Tree, and any other frames originating from the DUT/SUT be disabled when running this test. If such protocols cannot be turned off, the flood count MUST be modified only to count test frame originating from Lport and MUST NOT count frames originating from the DUT/SUT. Mandeville, Perser [Page 22] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 The algorithm for the test is as follows: CONSTANT AGE = ...; {value greater that DUT aging time} MAX = ...; {maximum address support by implementation} VARIABLE LOW := 0; {Highest passed valve} HIGH := MAX; {Lowest failed value} N := ...; {user specified initial starting point} BEGIN DO BEGIN PAUSE(AGE); {Age out any learned addresses} AddressLearning(TPort); {broadcast a frame with its source Address and broadcast destination} AddressLearning(LPort); {N frames with varying source addresses to Test Port} Transmit(TPort); {N frames with varying destination addresses corresponding to Learning Port} IF (MPort receive frame != 0) OR (LPort receive frames < TPort transmit) THEN BEGIN {Address Table of DUT/SUT was full} HIGH := N; END ELSE BEGIN {Address Table of DUT/SUT was NOT full} LOW := N; END N := LOW + (HIGH - LOW)/2; END WHILE (HIGH - LOW < 2); END {Value of N equals number of addresses supported by DUT/SUT} Using a binary search approach, the test targets the exact number of addresses supported per port with consistent test iterations. Due to the aging time of DUT/SUT address tables, each iteration may take some time during the waiting period for the addresses to clear. If possible, configure the DUT/SUT for a low value for the aging time. Once the high and low values of N meet, then the threshold of address handling has been found. 5.7.4 Measurements Whether the offered addresses per port was successful forwarded without flooding. Mandeville, Perser [Page 23] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.7.5 Reporting format After the test is run, results for each iteration SHOULD be displayed in a table to include: The number of addresses used for each test iteration (varied). The intended load used for each test iteration (fixed). Number of test frames that were offered to Tport of the DUT/SUT. This SHOULD match the number of addresses used for the test iteration. Test frames are the frames sent with varying destination addresses to confirm that the DUT/SUT has learned all of the addresses for each test iteration. The flood count on Tport during the test portion of each test. If the number is non-zero, this is an indication of the DUT/SUT flooding a frame in which the destination address is not in the address table. The number of frames correctly forwarded to test Lport during the test portion of the test. Received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. For a passing test iteration, this number should be equal to the number of frames transmitted by Tport. The flood count on Lport during the test portion of each test. If the number is non-zero, this is an indication of the DUT/SUT flooding a frame in which the destination address is not in the address table. The flood count on Mport. If the value is not zero, then this indicates that for that test iteration, the DUT/SUT could not determine the proper destination port for that many frames. In other words, the DUT/SUT flooded the frame to all ports since its address table was full. 5.8 Address Learning Rate 5.8.1 Objective To determine the rate of address learning of a LAN switching device. 5.8.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Age Time - The maximum time that a DUT/SUT will keep a learned address in its forwarding table. Mandeville, Perser [Page 24] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Initial Addresses Learning Rate - The starting rate at which new addresses are offered to the DUT/SUT to be learned. Number of Addresses - The number of addresses that the DUT/SUT must learn. The number MUST be between 1 and the maximum number supported by the implementation. It is recommended no to exceed the address caching capacity found in section 5.9 5.8.3 Procedure The aging time of the DUT/SUT MUST be known. The aging time MUST be longer than the time necessary to produce frames at the specified rate. If a low frame rate is used for the test, then it may be possible that sending a large amount of frames may actually take longer than the aging time. This test MUST at a minimum be performed in a three-port configuration in section 5.9.3. The test MAY be expanded to fully utilized the DUT/SUT in increments of two or three ports. An increment of two would include an additional Learning port and Test port. An increment of three would include an additional Learning port, Test port, and Monitoring port. An algorithm similar to the one used to determine address caching capacity can be used to determine the address learning rate. This test iterates the rate at which address learning frames are offered by the test device connected to the DUT/SUT. It is recommended to set the number of addresses offered to the DUT/SUT in this test to the maximum caching capacity. The address learning rate might be determined for different numbers of addresses but in each test run, the number MUST remain constant and SHOULD be equal to or less than the maximum address caching capacity. 5.8.4 Measurements Whether the offered addresses per port were successful forwarded without flooding at the offered learning rate. 5.8.5 Reporting format After the test is run, results for each iteration SHOULD be displayed in a table: The number of addresses used for each test iteration (fixed). The intended load used for each test iteration (varied). Mandeville, Perser [Page 25] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Number of test frames that were transmitted by Tport. This SHOULD match the number of addresses used for the test iteration. Test frames are the frames sent with varying destination addresses to confirm that the DUT/SUT has learned all of the addresses for each test iteration. The flood count on Tport during the test portion of each test. If the number is non-zero, this is an indication of the DUT/SUT flooding a frame in which the destination address is not in the address table. The number of frames correctly forwarded to test Lport during the test portion of the test. Received frames MUST have the correct destination MAC address and SHOULD match a signature field. For a passing test iteration, this number should be equal to the number of frames transmitted by Tport. The flood count on Lport during the test portion of each test. If the number is non-zero, this is an indication of the DUT/SUT flooding a frame in which the destination address is not in the address table. The flood count on Mport. If the value is not zero, then this indicates that for that test iteration, the DUT/SUT could not determine the proper destination port for that many frames. In other words, the DUT/SUT flooded the frame to all ports since its address table was full. 5.9 Errored frames filtering 5.9.1 Objective The objective of the Errored frames filtering test is to determine the behavior of the DUT under error or abnormal frame conditions. The results of the test indicate if the DUT/SUT filters the errors, or simply propagates the errored frames along to the destination. 5.9.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theorical load possible. The actual transmitted frame per second is dependent upon half duplex or full duplex operation. The test SHOULD be run multiple times with a different load per port in each case. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 26] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.9.3 Procedure Each of the illegal frames for Ethernet MUST be checked: Oversize - The DUT/SUT MAY filter frames larger than 1518 bytes from being propagated through the DUT/SUT section 4.2.4.2.1 [4]. Oversized frames transmitted to the DUT/SUT should not be forwarded. DUT/SUT supporting tagged Frames MAY forward frames up to and including 1522 bytes long (section 4.2.4.2.1 [5]). Undersize - The DUT/SUT MUST filter frames less than 64 bytes from being propagated through the DUT/SUT (section 4.2.4.2.2 [4]). Undersized frames (or collision fragments) received by the DUT/SUT must not be forwarded. CRC Errors - The DUT/SUT MUST filter frames that fail the Frame Check Sequence Validation (section 4.2.4.1.2 [4]) from being propagated through the DUT/SUT. Frames with an invalid CRC transmitted to the DUT/SUT should not be forwarded. Dribble Bit Errors - The DUT/SUT MUST correct and forward frames containing dribbling bits. Frames transmitted to the DUT/SUT that do not end in an octet boundary but contain a valid frame check sequence MUST be accepted by the DUT/SUT (section 4.2.4.2.1 [4]) and forwarded to the correct receive port with the frame ending in an octet boundary (section 3.4 [4]). Alignment Errors - The DUT/SUT MUST filter frames that fail the Frame Check Sequence Validation AND do not end in an octet boundary. This is a combination of a CRC error and a Dribble Bit error. When both errors are occurring in the same frame, the DUT/SUT MUST determine the CRC error takes precedence and filters the frame (section 4.2.4.1.2 [4]) from being propagated. 5.9.5 Reporting format For each of the error conditions in section 5.6.3, a "pass" or "fail" MUST be reported. Actual frame counts MAY be reported for diagnostic purposes. Mandeville, Perser [Page 27] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.10 Broadcast frame Forwarding and Latency 5.10.1 Objective The objective of the Broadcast Frame Forwarding and Latency Test is to determine the throughput and latency of the DUT when forwarding broadcast traffic. The ability to forward broadcast frames will depend upon a specific function built into the device for that purpose. It is therefore necessary to determine the ability of DUT/SUT to handle broadcast frames, since there may be many different ways of implementing such a function. 5.10.2 Setup Parameters The following parameters MUST be defined. Each variable is configured with the following considerations. Frame Size - Recommended frame sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, per RFC 2544 section 9 [3]. The four CRC bytes are included in the frame size specified. Duplex mode - Half duplex or full duplex. ILoad - Intended Load per port is expressed in a percentage of the medium's maximum theoretical load, regardless of traffic orientation or duplex mode. Certain test configurations will theoretically over-subscribe the DUT/SUT. ILoad will not over-subscribe the DUT/SUT in this test. Trial Duration - The recommended Trial Duration is 30 seconds. Trial duration SHOULD be adjustable between 1 and 300 seconds. 5.10.3 Procedure For this test, there are two parts to be run. Broadcast Frame Throughput - This portion of the test uses a single source test port to transmit test frames with a broadcast address using the frame specified in RFC 2544 [3]. Selected receive ports then measure the forwarding rate and Frame loss rate. Broadcast Frame Latency - This test uses the same setup as the Broadcast Frame throughput, but instead of a large stream of test frames being sent, only one test frame is sent and the latency to each of the receive ports are measured in seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 28] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 5.10.4 Measurements Frame loss rate of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as defined in section 26.3 [3] with the following notes: Frame loss rate SHOULD be measured at the end of the trial duration. The term "rate", for this measurement only, does not imply the units in the fashion of "per second." Forwarding rate (FR) of the DUT/SUT SHOULD be reported as the number of test frames per second that the device is observed to successfully forward to the correct destination interface in response to a specified Oload. The Oload MUST also be cited. 5.10.5 Reporting format The results for these tests SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The x coordinate SHOULD be the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the test results. There SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph, one plotting the theoretical and one plotting the test results. To measure the DUT/SUT's ability to switch traffic while performing many different address lookups, the number of addresses per port MAY be increased in a series of tests. 6. Security Considerations As this document is solely for the purpose of providing metric methodology and describes neither a protocol nor a protocol's implementation, there are no security considerations associated with this document. 7. References [1] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991. [2] Mandeville, R., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998. [3] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 2000. [4] ANSI/IEEE, "CSMA/CD Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications," ISO/IEC 8802-3, ISBN 0-7381-0330-6, 1998. [5] IEEE Draft, "Frame Extensions for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks (VLAN) Tagging on 802.3 Networks", 802.3ac/D3.1, July 1998. Mandeville, Perser [Page 29] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 8. Authors' Address Robert Mandeville European Network Laboratories (ENL) 2, rue Helene Boucher 87286 Guyancourt Cedex France Phone: + 33 1 39 44 12 05 EMail: bob@enl.net Jerry Perser Netcom Systems 26750 Agoura Road Calabasas, CA 91302 USA Phone: + 1 818 676 2300 Email: jerry_perser@netcomsystems.com Mandeville, Perser [Page 30] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Appendix A: Formulas A.1 Calculating the InterBurst Gap IBG is defined in RFC 2285 [2] as the interval between two bursts. To achieve a desired load, the following Input Parameter need to be defined: LENGTH - Frame size in bytes including the CRC. LOAD - The intended load in percent. Range is 0 to 100. BURST - The number of frames in the burst (integer value). SPEED - media's speed in bits/sec Ethernet is 10,000,000 bits/sec Fast Ethernet is 100,000,000 bits/sec Gigabit Ethernet is 1,000,000,000 bits/sec IFG - A constant 96 bits for the minimum interframe gap. The IBG (in seconds) can be calculated: [(100/LOAD - 1) * BURST * (IFG + 64 + 8*LENGTH)] + IFG IBG = ----------------------------------------------------------- SPEED A.2 Calculating the Number of Bursts for the Trial Duration The number of bursts for the trial duration is rounded up to the nearest integer number. The follow Input Parameter need to be defined: LENGTH - Frame size in bytes including the CRC. BURST - The number of frames in the burst (integer value). SPEED - media's speed in bits/sec Ethernet is 10,000,000 bits/sec Fast Ethernet is 100,000,000 bits/sec Gigabit Ethernet is 1,000,000,000 bits/sec IFG - A constant 96 bits for the minimum interframe gap. IBG - Found in the above formula DURATION - Trial duration in seconds. Mandeville, Perser [Page 31] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 An intermediate number of the Burst duration needs to be calculated first: IFG*(BURST-1) + BURST*(64 + 8*LENGTH) TXTIME = ----------------------------------------- SPEED Number of Burst for the Trial Duration (rounded up): DURATION #OFBURSTS = -------------- (TXTIME + IBG) Example: LENGTH = 64 bytes per frame LOAD = 100 % offered load BURST = 24 frames per burst SPEED = 10 Mbits/sec (Ethernet) DURATION = 10 seconds test IBG = 1612.8 uS TXTIME = 1603.2 uS #OFBURSTS = 3110 Mandeville, Perser [Page 32] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 Appendix B: Generating Offered Load In testing, the traffic generator is configured with the Iload (Intended Load) and measures the Oload (Offered Load). If the DUT/SUT applies congestion control, then the Iload and the Oload are not the same value. The question arises, how to generate the Oload? This appendix will describe two different methods. The unit of measurement for Oload is bits per second. The two methods described here will hold one unit constant and let the DUT/SUT vary the other unit. The traffic generator SHOULD specify which method it uses. B.1 Frame Based Load Frame Based Load holds the number of bits constant. The Trial Duration will vary based upon congestion control. Advantage is implementation is a simple state machine (or loop). The disadvantage is that Oload needs to be measured independently. All ports on the traffic generator MUST transmit the exact number of test frames. The exact number of test frames is found by multiplying the Iload of the port by the Trial Duration. All ports MAY NOT transmit the same number of frames if their Iload is not the same. An example would be the Partially meshed many-to-one test. All ports SHOULD start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames within 300 milliseconds of each other. The reported Oload SHOULD be the average during the Trial Duration. If the traffic generator continues to transmit after the Trial Duration due to congestion control, Oload MAY be averaged over the entire transmit time. Oload for the DUT/SUT MUST be the aggregate of all the Oloads per port. Oload per port MAY be reported. Mandeville, Perser [Page 33] INTERNET-DRAFT LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology March 2000 B.2 Time Based Load Time based load holds the Trial Duration constant, while allowing the number of octets transmitted to vary. Advantages are an accurate Trial Duration and integrated Oload measurement. Disadvantage is that the starting and stopping of the traffic generator MUST be more accurate. All ports on the traffic generator are configured to transmit the Iload for a finite amount of time. Each port MUST count the number of octets successfully transmitted. The start and stop is initiated at a layer defined by the test parameters. The layer can be the MAC layer, IP layer, or some other point in the protocol stack. The traffic generator MUST complete its layer specific transmit process when the stop time is reached (i.e. no fragments, finish the frame). All ports MUST start transmitting their frames within 1% of the trial duration. For a trial duration of 30 seconds, all ports SHOULD have started transmitting frames within 300 milliseconds of each other. All ports SHOULD stop transmitting frames after the specified trail duration within 0.01% of the trial duration. Each port's stop time MUST be reference to its start time. This trial duration error controls the accuracy of the Oload measurement and SHOULD be reported with the Oload measurement. Each port is allowed an offset error of 0.1% and a trial duration error of 0.01%. Oload is found by taking the number of octets successfully transmitted and dividing by the trial duration. Oload for the DUT/SUT MUST be the aggregate of all the Oloads per port. Oload per port MAY be reported for diagnostic purposes. Mandeville, Perser [Page 34] From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Tue Apr 25 16:45:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08251 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:45:30 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08010 for x-bmwg-include; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jake.cais.net (jake.cais.net [205.252.14.6]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07977 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.216.127.98] (63-216-127-98.sdsl.cais.net [63.216.127.98]) by jake.cais.net (8.9.1/Jake) with ESMTP id KAA12127; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hcb@mail.clark.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38D2AACB.A9797C36@ironbridgenetworks.com> References: <38D2AACB.A9797C36@ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:33:34 -0400 To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: Router Benchmarking Framework and Metric Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ironbridgenetworks.com id KAA07989 Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk (apologies to Kevin for having missed this earlier thread). The metrics proposed seem to focus on router throughput, but not convergence and reconvergence. Recently, I've been working on a set of definitions for BGP convergence, which certainly is applicable to other routing protocols. My methodology has been to start with a single router's convergence before going to routing-domain-wide or Internet-wide convergence. Even there, there definitely appear to be several useful meanings of convergence, from initialization, to time to reconverge on a previously known less preferred route after a withdraw, to time to reconverge on a withdraw and update, to time to begin propagating a received route. Does this fit into the proposed document scope? Would another document be preferable? Howard Berkowitz Carrier Packet Solutions Nortel Networks (I work remotely. hcb@clark.net is far more reliable than hberkowi@nortelnetworks.com. (voice (703)998-5819 ESN 451-5819 >There are two documents that are to be developed this year. We believe >that the first "Framework for Router Metrics and Benchmarking" is a >document that MUST be written before any other router documents are >submitted. This framework document will be format of RFC 2330 "Framework >for IP Performance Metrics", May 1998. We also believe that router >documents can be submitted when most of the "Framework for Router >Benchmarking" is at completed, there is no need to wait to have this >published as an RFC before other work can begin. > >Cynthia Martin >Jeff Dunn >ANC, Inc. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Work Plan for "Framework for Router Metrics and Benchmarking" > >I. Introduction > >The purpose of this memo is to define a general framework for particular >metrics to be developed by the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group >(BMWG) of the Operational Requirements Area. This memo extends existing >work, specifically RFC 2330 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", May >1998. > >This document will lay out several criteria for the routing metrics to be >developed. These criteria are designed to promote a BMWG effort that will >maximize an accurate common understanding by Internet users and Internet >providers of the performance and reliability both of end-to-end paths >through the Internet and of specific 'IP clouds' that comprise portions of >those paths. > >This document will reference Internet vocabulary, clearly describing >Internet components such as routers, routing protocols, and router MIB >element definitions. Any additional router related vocabulary necessary to >develop router metrics will be defined in this document. Measurement >uncertainties and errors will be described, including how they relate to >the analytical framework shared by many aspects of the Internet engineering >discipline. > >The remainder of the document will provide the definitions of configuration >and state parameter sets which effect IP packet forwarding performance in >routers. Specifically, the following four classes of configuration and >state parameter sets will be defined: >1) static configuration parameters >2) dynamic configuration parameters >3) static state parameters >4) dynamic state parameters > > >II. Framework Document Milestones > >April 2000 - First draft of framework document submitted to working group > >July 2000 - Rough consensus as to framework > >December 2000 - Final thrashing out of document and last call > > > > > > >Work Plan for "Metrics for IPv4 Router Benchmarking" > >I. Introduction > >This memo will discuss and define the basic metrics associated with >performance benchmarking tests and the results of these tests in the >context of router devices supporting IPv4. Terminology for router and >routing protocols is already defined in various IETF RFC's and ID's and >will be not discussed in the memo. > >This document assumes that necessary services are available and active to >provide routing services. This document covers only exterior routing >protocols, interior routing protocols, and their interaction. The metrics >are generic and can be applied to all IETF defined routing protocols for >IPv4. It may be necessary to define routing protocol specific metrics in >separate documents. This document presents only the metrics associated >with benchmarking IP performance in routers; therefore, it does not >represent a total compilation of router test metrics. > >II. Objective > >The goal of this effort is to produce a set of metrics, from which a >methodology can be derived, to characterize the effects of a router's >configuration and state on IP packet forwarding performance as defined in >RFC 2544 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices". >"Framework for Router Metrics and Benchmarking" ID should be consulted >before attempting to make use of this document. Metrics will be defined in >accordance with the framework specified in RFC 1242 "Benchmarking >Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices". Specifically, this effort >will focus on the effects of the following configuration and states >parameter sets on IP packet forwarding performance: > >1. Static configuration parameters, e.g., route cache vs. total available >memory size > >2. Dynamic configuration parameters, e.g., BGP4 >MinRouteAdvertisementInterval > >3. Static states, e.g., response to BGP4 NLRI updates > >4. Dynamics states, e.g., response to conflicting BGP4 NLRI updates (route >flapping) > >Metrics will be defined which characterize both the impact on IP packet >forwarding performance and router response to route updates based on these >states. Packet forwarding performance assessment will be based on metrics >described in RFCs 1242, 2285 and 2761. The assessment of router response >will be based on the values of MIB objects described in RFC 1850 and the >upcoming BGP MIB document. > >Specific metrics will include: > >1. IP packet: Delay Variation, Error Ratio, Loss Rate, Latency, >Throughput and many more > >2. Router: Interface and Interface Metric Table state, MIB Alignment >Time, Neighbor and Virtual Neighbor Table state, Route Update Response >Time and many more > >III. Metric Document Milestones > >April 2000 - First draft of metric document submitted to working group > >July 2000 - Rough consensus as to metric definitions > >December 2000 - Final thrashing out of document and last call > >IV. Future developments > >December 2000 - First draft of methodology document based on rough >consensus on metrics > >March 2001 - Final draft of methodology document and last call From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Wed Apr 26 11:06:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17171 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:06:34 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12607 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:01:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aetos.it.teithe.gr (tzevgit@aetos.it.teithe.gr [193.92.235.39]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA12586 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 05:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (tzevgit@localhost) by aetos.it.teithe.gr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14309 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:01:00 +0300 (EET) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:01:00 +0300 From: Zevgitis Theodoros To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: benchmark problem Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk I am trying to measure the bandwidth with some tools such as pathchar, bing clink etc. But i have the same problem with all tsesse programs. They find the path from mine pc to the host and measure the bw from the one router to the other along the path without any problem and finally measures and the bw from the last router to the host.But when the host is a router something goes bad and the half of the packets sends can't received from the router. Do you know why this happens? Thank you... Thodoris Zevgitis From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Wed Apr 26 19:14:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20578 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:14:04 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20118 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:08:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pilgrim.cisco.com (pilgrim.cisco.com [171.69.204.12]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20098 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pwiggins-pc (ch-dhcp207-77.cisco.com [171.69.207.77]) by pilgrim.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA11787 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004261708.NAA11787@pilgrim.cisco.com> X-Sender: pwiggins@pilgrim.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:58:54 -0400 To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com From: Paul Wiggins Subject: loosening of Throughput standard? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk While I was looking the other way... has there been a loosening of the definition of Throughput in RFC1242? My interpretation is Throughput is the highest frame rate in which no packets are dropped. thanks. -paul From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Wed Apr 26 20:46:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21356 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 20:45:58 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA23448 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23430 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from miles (sdn-ar-001njhackP213.dialsprint.net [168.191.60.125]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA05159; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:44:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Newman" To: "Paul Wiggins" , Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard? Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:44:42 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200004261708.NAA11787@pilgrim.cisco.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk > > While I was looking the other way... has there been a loosening > of the definition of Throughput in RFC1242? > > My interpretation is Throughput is the highest frame rate in > which no packets are dropped. > No loosening, but not throughput isn't the only measurement. RFC 2285 defines another metric -- forwarding rate -- that does allow for frame loss (i.e., it allows for measurements at frame rates above those at which zero loss is observed). Throughput still denotes zero frame loss. dn From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Wed Apr 26 21:13:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21570 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:13:45 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03903 for x-bmwg-include; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchangeserver.ganymedesoftware.com (mail.ganymede.com [208.240.117.8]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03891 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchangeserver.ganymede.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <26JAB3WT>; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:09:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3077949C05DBD111AB1000A0C9B427E901B80450@exchangeserver.ganymede.com> From: Jim McQuaid To: "'Paul Wiggins'" , bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard? Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:09:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk The definition is unchanged. Many have thought / proposed / used other terms or simply mangled the definition. But throughput remains the highest rate at which NO packets are dropped. For some devices, the HIGHEST forward rate is higher than this. Jim McQuaid -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wiggins [mailto:pwiggins@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 12:59 PM To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: loosening of Throughput standard? While I was looking the other way... has there been a loosening of the definition of Throughput in RFC1242? My interpretation is Throughput is the highest frame rate in which no packets are dropped. thanks. -paul From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 27 19:10:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA30875 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:10:52 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24467 for x-bmwg-include; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange1.netcomsystems.com (mushroom.netcomsystems.com [12.9.24.195]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24429 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by EXCHANGE1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:01:30 -0700 Message-ID: <9384475DFC05D2118F9C00805F6F2631018A5489@EXCHANGE1> From: "Perser, Jerry" To: "BMWG (E-mail)" Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard? Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:01:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06A.3B9F8438" Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06A.3B9F8438 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No. Not as far as I am concerned, as Netcom Systems is concerned, nor = the applications they develop. The definition of throughput is clear and concise. If you want something looser than Throughput, try Forwarding Rate from = RFC 2285. You can state the Maximum Forwarding Rate while packets are = being dropped. There are some people that are applying an acceptable frame loss rate = to the throughput definition. The next question (or argument) is what is acceptable? I do not recommend this route because it is non-standard = and difficult to do comparisons. > While I was looking the other way... has there been a loosening > of the definition of Throughput in RFC 1242? >=20 > My interpretation is Throughput is the highest frame rate in > which no packets are dropped. >=20 > thanks. >=20 > -paul ___________________________________________________________=20 Jerry Perser=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Phone: = 818.676.2320=20 SmartLab Manager=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Lab: 818.676.2337=20 Netcom Systems = Inc.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Fax:=A0=A0=A0818.880.9165=A0=A0=A0=A0=20 26750 Agoura Road=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Corp: 818.676.2300=20 Calabasas, CA, 91302 Pager:=A08185963000.0089988@pagenet.net =A0=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06A.3B9F8438 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: loosening of Throughput standard?

No.  Not as far as I am concerned, as Netcom = Systems is concerned, nor the applications they develop.  The = definition of throughput is clear and concise.

If you want something looser than Throughput, try = Forwarding Rate from RFC 2285.  You can state the Maximum = Forwarding Rate while packets are being dropped.

There are some people that are applying an acceptable = frame loss rate to the throughput definition.  The next question = (or argument) is what is acceptable?  I do not recommend this = route because it is non-standard and difficult to do = comparisons.

> While I was looking the other way... has there = been a loosening
> of the definition of Throughput in RFC = 1242?
>
> My interpretation is Throughput is the highest = frame rate in
> which no packets are dropped.
>
> thanks.
>
> -paul

___________________________________________________________ =
Jerry = Perser=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Phone: 818.676.2320 =
SmartLab = Manager=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0      Lab:   = 818.676.2337
Netcom Systems = Inc.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Fax:=A0=A0=A0818.880.9165=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
26750 Agoura = Road=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Corp:  818.676.2300
Calabasas, CA, = 91302       = Pager:=A08185963000.0089988@pagenet.net

=A0

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06A.3B9F8438-- From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 27 20:18:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA31402 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:18:36 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18896 for x-bmwg-include; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18733 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14774; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200004271809.OAA14774@newdev.harvard.edu> To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com, Jerry_Perser@NetcomSystems.com Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard? Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk > There are some people that are applying an acceptable frame loss rate = > to the > throughput definition. The next question (or argument) is what is > acceptable? no Scott From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 27 20:46:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA31633 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:46:45 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13736 for x-bmwg-include; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Conrad.Harvard.EDU (root@conrad.harvard.edu [128.103.209.81]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA13702 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by Conrad.Harvard.EDU (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m12ktB0-00098BC; Thu, 27 Apr 100 14:38 EDT Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:38:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Conrad C. Nobili" X-Sender: conrad@Conrad.Harvard.EDU To: "Perser, Jerry" cc: "BMWG (E-mail)" Subject: RE: loosening of Throughput standard? In-Reply-To: <9384475DFC05D2118F9C00805F6F2631018A5489@EXCHANGE1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Perser, Jerry wrote: > There are some people that are applying an acceptable frame loss rate > to the throughput definition. Why?!? That doesn't make any sense! > The next question (or argument) is what is acceptable? Zero frames lost. > I do not recommend this route because it is non-standard and > difficult to do comparisons. That's true, but entirely beside the more important point that it makes no sense anyway. --cn Conrad C. Nobili Conrad_Nobili@Harvard.EDU Harvard University NDTL/NOC From owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Fri Apr 28 15:47:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by dokka.maxware.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06765 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:46:58 +0200 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23833 for x-bmwg-include; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:41:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ironbridgenetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23798 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <390994F3.E846EFFB@ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:41:07 -0400 From: Kevin Dubray Reply-To: kdubray@ironbridgenetworks.com Organization: IronBridge Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Subject: Question on Multicast Methodology draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bmwg@ironbridgenetworks.com Precedence: bulk I have some questions on the current multicast methodology I-D, . As I read section 4.4, Encapsulation Throughput, is the collection methodology specified adequate for folks? I surely get the impression of suggested configurations. And on configuration: earlier discussions (see Oslo minutes, for example) suggested a single DUT configuration focus. The current section's focus seems to disregard this counsel. Any technical insight as to why? Minor nit: there's a reference to a Figure B in the section. No figure B exists in the document. -Kevin