[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group                                      Aamer Akhter
Internet Draft                                              Rajiv Asati
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 2008

                                                          Cisco Systems
                                                       December 3, 2007


                       MPLS Benchmarking Methodology
                   <draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-03.txt>


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2008.

Abstract

   The purpose of this draft is to describe a methodology specific to
   the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The scope of this
   benchmarking will be limited to various types of packet-forwarding
   and delay measurements. It builds upon the tenets set forth in
   RFC2544 [RFC2544], RFC1242 [RFC1242] and other IETF Benchmarking



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


   Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This document seeks to
   extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm.



   The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
   Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents.  The
   Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related
   terms. The Methodology documents define the procedures required to
   collect the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology
   documents.



Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Document Scope.................................................3
   3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements..............................3
   4. Test Methodology...............................................3
   4.1. Test Considerations..........................................4
   4.1.1. IGP Support................................................4
   4.1.2. Label Distribution Support.................................5
   4.1.3. Frame Sizes................................................5
   4.1.4. TTL........................................................5
   4.1.5. Trial Duration.............................................5
   4.1.6. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State..............6
   4.1.7. Abbreviations Used.........................................6
   5. Reporting Format...............................................7
   6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking tests.............................7
   6.1. Throughput...................................................9
   6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition ......................9
   6.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap............................10
   6.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition.....................11
   6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate).........12
   6.2. Latency Measurement.........................................13
   6.3. Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)...........................15
   6.4. System Recovery.............................................16
   6.5. Reset.......................................................17
   7. Security Considerations.......................................18
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................18
   9. References....................................................19
   9.1. Normative References........................................19
   9.2. Informative References......................................19
   Author's Addresses...............................................19
   Intellectual Property Statement..................................20


Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


   Disclaimer of Validity...........................................20
   Copyright Statement..............................................20
   Acknowledgment...................................................21

1. Introduction

   Over the past several years MPLS networks have gained greater
   popularity. However, there is no standard method to compare and
   contrast the varying implementations and their strong and weak
   points. This document proposes a methodology using common criteria
   for the comparison of various implementations of basic MPLS
   forwarding devices.

2. Document Scope

   MPLS [RFC3031] is a foundation enabling technology for other more
   advanced technologies such as Layer 3 MPLS-VPNs, Layer 2 MPLS-VPNs,
   and MPLS Traffic Engineering. This document focuses on MPLS
   forwarding characterization.

3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements

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

4. Test Methodology

   The set of methodologies described in this document will use the
   topologies described in this section. An effort has been made to
   exclude superfluous equipment needs such that each test can be
   carried out with the minimum number of requirements.

   Figure 1 illustrates the sample topology in which the DUT is
   connected to the test ports on the test tool.










Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


                    +-----------------+
    +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
    | Test    |     |                 |     | Test    |
    | Port A1 +-----+ DA1         DB1 -----+ Port B1 |
    +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
    +---------+     |       DUT       |     +---------+
    | Test    |     |                 |     | Test    |
    | Port A2 +-----+ DA2         DB2 +-----+ Port B2 |
    +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
         ...        |                 |        ...
    +---------+     |                 |     +---------+
    | Test    |     +-----------------+     | Test    |
    | Port Ap |                             | Port Bp |
    +---------+                             +---------+


                  Figure 1 Topology #1, Basic Forwarding



   Where number of ports (p) is determined by the maximum
   unidirectional forwarding throughput of the DUT and the load
   capacity of the media between the Test Ports and DUT. For example,
   if the DUT's forwarding throughput is 100 frames per second (fps),
   and the media capacity is 50 fps than p = 2.

   The minimum value for Bp is 2, as multiple B interfaces are needed
   for head of line blocking testing (Section TBD).

4.1. Test Considerations

   This methodology assumes a full-duplex uniform medium topology. The
   medium used MUST be reported in each test result. Issues regarding
   mixed transmission media, speed mismatches, media header differences
   etc, are not under consideration. Flow control, QoS, Graceful
   Restart and other non-essential traffic or traffic-effecting
   features MUST be disabled, unless explicitly requested by the test
   case.

4.1.1. IGP Support

   It is highly RECOMMENDED that all of the interfaces (A1, DA1, DB1,
   A2..) on DUT and test tool support an IGP such as IS-IS, OSPF, EIGRP
   etc. Furthermore, there are testing considerations in this document
   that the device is able to provide a stable control-plane during
   heavy forwarding workloads. The route distribution method used
   (OSPF, IS-IS etc.) MUST be repoted.


Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




4.1.2. Label Distribution Support

   The DUT and test tool must support at least one protocol for
   exchanging MPLS labels. The test tool and test tool must be capable
   of learning and advertising MPLS label bindings via the chosen
   protocol(s), and use them during packet forwarding as desired. The
   most commonly used protocol is Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
   [RFC3036], and MP-BGP [RFC4364] for VPN.

   All of the interfaces connected to the DUT such as A1, DA1, DB1, A2
   etc., MUST support Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and MP-BGP for
   IPv4 or IPv6 FECs.

4.1.3. Frame Sizes

   Each test SHOULD be run with different frame sizes in different
   trials. For Ethernet, the recommended sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512,
   1024, 1280 and 1518. Recommended sizes for other media can be found
   in RFC 2544. Frame sizes MUST be based on the pre-MPLS shim version
   of the frame.

   In addition to the individual frame size trials, an IMIX traffic run
   SHOULD also be included.

   When running trials between different frame sizes, the DUT
   configuration MUST remain the same.

4.1.4. TTL

   The MPLS TTL or IP TTL (depending on which portion of the packet the
   DUT is basing the forwarding behavior) MUST be large enough to
   traverse the DUT.

4.1.5. Trial Duration

   Unless otherwise specified, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
   no less than 30 seconds when static routing is in place and no less
   than 200 seconds when a dynamic routing protocol and LDP (default
   holddown timer is 180 seconds) are being used.

   The longer trial time for when dynamic routing protocols are being
   used is for verifying that the DUT is able to maintain a stable
   control plane when the data-forwarding plane is under stress.




Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


4.1.5.1. Traffic Verification

   In all cases the sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
   received on the wrong port, correct port or not received at all. In
   addition, the MPLS header presence or non-presence of the packet
   MUST be verified, as well as checksum, frame sequencing and correct
   MPLS TTL decrementing.

   The MPLS header presence will be determined by the test. Some tests
   will require the MPLS header to be imposed while others will require
   a swap or disposition. In general, many test tools will by default
   only verify that they have received the embedded signature on the
   receive side, but will not validate MPLS stack depth. An even
   greater level of verification would be to check if the correct label
   was imposed, but that is considered out of scope for these tests.



4.1.6. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State



   If the test or media is making use of a dynamic protocol (eg ARP,
   OSPF, LDP), all state for the protocols should be pre-established
   before the start of the trial.



4.1.7. Abbreviations Used

4.1.7.1. MpRNy

     Port based Remote Network

     M := Module Side(could be A or B)

     p: = port number

     RN := Remote Network (can also be thought of as a network that is
     reachable via ) Mp.

     y := number of network. (ie the first network reachable via B1
     would be called B1RN1 and the 5th network would be called B1RN5)






Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


5. Reporting Format



   For each test case, it is recommended that the following variables
   be reported in addition to the specific parameters requested by the
   test case:



        Parameter                   Unit

        Internet Protocol           IPv4, IPv6

        Label Distribution          LDP, RSVP-TE, BGP (or
        Protocol                    combinations)

        MPLS Forwarding             Imposition, Swap,
        Operation                   Disposition

        IGP                         ISIS, OSPF or EIGRP etc.

        Throughput                  Frames per second

        Interface Type              GigE, POS, ATM etc

        Interface Speed             1 gbps, 100 Mbps, etc

        Interface Encapsulation     VLAN, PPP, HDLC

        Packet Size                 Bytes

        Number of A and B           1A, 2B
        interfaces (see Figure
        1)





6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking tests

   MPLS is altogether a different forwarding paradigm from IP. Unlike
   IP packet and IP forwarding, MPLS packet is likely to contain more
   than one MPLS headers and may go through one of three forwarding
   operations - imposition, swap and disposition. Such characteristics
   desire further granularity in MPLS forwarding benchmarking than


Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


   those of described in RFC2544. Thus the benchmarking includes, but
   not limited to:

     1. Throughput

     2. Latency

     3. Frame Loss rate

     4. Back to Back frame

     5. System Recovery

     6. Reset

     7. MPLS EXP field Operations

     8. Negative Scenarios



   This document focuses on the first six categories. All the
   benchmarking test cases described in this document are expected to
   at a minimum follow the below 'Test Setup' and 'Test Procedure.'

   Test Setup

     It is recommended that a single A and B interface SHOULD be used.
     However, if the forwarding throughput of the DUT is more than that
     of the media rate of a single interface, then additional A and B
     interfaces MUST be enabled so as to exceed the DUT's forwarding
     throughput. In such case, the tool traffic should use BpRN1 and
     BpAN as the IP destinations in a weighted round robin fashion. The
     weighting ratio between  BpRN1 and BpAN is a constant test
     parameter. A suggested ratio is 1:100 with BpAN:BpRN1. The traffic
     streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544.

     For testcases involving two (or more) MPLS headers i.e. multi-
     label, the test tool and DUT should emulate MPLS L3VPN PE
     functionality and exchange L3VPN routes with the labels.
     Specifically, MPLS L2VPNs MUST NOT be used to create the multi-
     label state.



   Test Procedure



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


     Send traffic from port Ap towards DUT at a constant load towards
     IP prefixes (BpRN1 addresses) advertised by the tool on the
     receive ports, for a fixed duration of time.

     If any frame loss is detected, a new iteration is needed where the
     offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An
     iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum
     offered frame rate with a zero frame loss.

     Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the
     regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test
     duration, number of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size
     etc) constant, until the maximum rate at which none of the offered
     frames are dropped is determined.



6.1. Throughput

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



6.1.1. Throughput for MPLS Label Imposition

   Objective

     To obtain the maximum forwarding rate during label imposition
     (i.e. IP to MPLS) for a regular (IPv4 or IPv6) packet by the DUT.

   Test Setup

     In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool should
     advertise the IP prefix(es) i.e. RNx(using a routing protocol as
     per section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label
     distribution protocol as per section 1.2) on its receive ports Bp
     to DUT. The test tool may learn these IP prefixes on its transmit
     ports Ap from DUT.

   Discussion

     The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain non-reserved MPLS
     label value as the outgoing label for the learned prefix,
     resulting in IP-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The testool must
     receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT) with the same
     label values that are advertised.


Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


   Procedure

     Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
     tool must send unlabeled IP packets on transmit ports Ap (with IP
     destination belonging to above IP prefix(es)), and expect to
     receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp.

   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.

     Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
     for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
     include: offered load and measured throughput.



6.1.2. Throughout for MPLS Label Swap

   Objective

     To obtain the maximum label swap rate for a labeled packet (i.e.
     MPLS to MPLS) by the DUT.

   Test Setup

     In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
     set up to advertise IP prefix (using a routing protocol as per
     section 1.1) and associated MPLS label (using a label distribution
     protocol as per section 1.2) on the receive ports Bp, and learn
     the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on the transmit
     ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label
     values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on
     ports Ap.

   Discussion

     The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain non-reserved MPLS
     label values as the outgoing and incoming labels for the learned
     prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding operation. The
     testool must receive MPLS packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT).
     The received MPLS packets must contain the same number of MPLS
     headers as those of transmitted MPLS Packets.

   Procedure




Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


     Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
     tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
     destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
     receive MPLS packets on its receive ports Bp.

   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.

     Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
     for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
     include: offered load and measured throughput.



6.1.3. Throughout for MPLS Label Disposition

   Objective

     To obtain the maximum label disposition rate for MPLS packet (i.e.
     MPLS to IP) by the DUT, when DUT installs "Untagged" outgoing
     label.

   Test Setup

     In addition to setup described in section 6, the test tool must be
     set up to advertise the IP prefix(es) (using a routing protocol as
     per section 1.1) without any MPLS label on the receive ports Bp,
     and learn the IP prefix(es) with the appropriate MPLS labels on
     the transmit ports Ap. The test tool then must use the learned
     MPLS label values and learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets
     transmitted on ports Ap.

   Discussion

     The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an untagged outgoing
     label for the learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding
     operation. The testool must receive IP packets on receive ports Bp
     (from DUT).

   Procedure

     Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
     tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
     destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
     receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.

     Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
     for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
     include: offered load and measured throughput.



6.1.4. Throughput for MPLS Label Disposition (Aggregate)



   Objective

     To obtain the maximum label disposition rate for MPLS packet (i.e.
     MPLS to IP) by the DUT, when DUT installs "Aggregate" outgoing
     label.



   Test Setup

     In addition to setup described in section 6, the DUT should be
     provisioned such that it allocates an aggregate outgoing label to
     a prefix (where the prefix may be a 'BGP aggregated prefix' , 'BGP
     VPN connected prefix' or an IGP aggregation that results in an
     aggregate label, etc. and must include the addresses belonging to
     the DUT receive ports Bp).

     The DUT must advertise the IP prefix(es) along with the MPLS
     label(s) via a label distribution protocol to the testool on tool
     transmit ports Ap.

     The test tool then must use the learned MPLS label values and
     learned IP prefix values in MPLS packets transmitted on ports Ap.



   Discussion

     The DUT's MPLS forwarding table must contain an aggregate outgoing
     label and IP forwarding table must contain a valid entry for the
     learned prefix, resulting in MPLS-to-IP forwarding operation (i.e.


Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


     MPLS header removal followed by IP lookup). The testool must
     receive IP packets on receive ports Bp (from DUT).



   Procedure

     Please see Test Procedure in section 6. Additionally, the test
     tool must send MPLS packets on its transmit ports Ap (with IP
     destination belonging to advertised IP prefix(es)), and expect to
     receive IP packets on its receive ports Bp.



   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.

     Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row
     for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD
     include: offered load and measured throughput.





6.2. Latency Measurement

   This measures the time taken by the DUT to forward the MPLS packet
   during various MPLS switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS or MPLS-to-
   MPLS or MPLS-to-IP involving one or more MPLS headers.

   The forwarding delay measurement requires the accurate propagation
   delay measurement as a prerequisite.

   One of the propagation delay measurement mechanisms is to connect
   test transmit port such as A1 and test receive port such as B1 with
   the wire length=X (bypass DA1 and DB1) and measure the time (t1)
   taken by the packet to reach from A1 to B1.

   Once the time t1 has been recorded, then the DUT should be inserted
   such that the test port A1 connects to DA1 and B1 connects to DB1,
   and the sum of A1-DA1 wire length and B1-DB1 wire length equals X.

   The packet should be sent from A1 to B1 such that the packet is
   received by DA1, which after consulting with its forwarding table,



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


   forwards the packet to B1 via DB1. The time (t2) taken by the packet
   to reach B1 (from A1) is recorded.

   The difference of time t2-t1 would provide the ballpark measurement
   of DUT's forwarding delay.

   The measurement for t2 should be performed under each of three
   forwarding operations (IP-to-MPLS, MPLS-to-MPLS, MPLS-to-IP) and
   measured accordingly.



   Objective

     To obtain the maximum latency induced by the DUT during MPLS
     packet forwarding for each of three forwarding operations.

   Test Setup

     Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
     MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
     6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) one by one.

   Procedure

     Please refer to RFC2544. Additionally, follow the associated
     procedure for each MPLS forwarding operation -


     IP-to-MPLS forwarding         (Imposition)   Section 6.1.1

     MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding       (Swap)         Section 6.1.2

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Disposition)  Section 6.1.3

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4









   Reporting Format



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.



6.3.  Frame Loss Rate Measurement (FLR)

   This measures the percentage of MPLS frames that were not forwarded
   during various switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS (imposition) or
   MPLS-to-IP (swap) or MPLS-IP (disposition) by the DUT under
   overloaded state.

   Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.3 for more details.



   Objective

     To obtain the frame loss rate, as defined in RFC1242, for each of
     three MPLS forwarding operations of a DUT, throughout the range of
     input data rates and frame sizes.

   Test Setup

     Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
     MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
     6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
     one by one.

   Procedure

     Please refer to RFC2544.

     Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
     each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -



     IP-to-MPLS forwarding         (Imposition)   Section 6.1.1

     MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding       (Swap)         Section 6.1.2

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Disposition)  Section 6.1.3

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4





Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.





6.4. System Recovery

   Objective

     To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an overload
     condition.

   Test Setup

     Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
     MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
     6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
     one by one.

   Procedure

     Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.5.

     Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
     each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -



     IP-to-MPLS forwarding         (Imposition)   Section 6.1.1

     MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding       (Swap)         Section 6.1.2

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Disposition)  Section 6.1.3

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4





   Reporting Format



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.



6.5. Reset

   Objective

     To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a device or
     software reset.

   Test Setup

     Follow the test setup guidelines established for each of three
     MPLS forwarding operations in section 6.1.1 (for IP-to-MPLS),
     6.1.2 (for MPLS-to-MPLS) and 6.1.3 (for MPLS-to-IP) and procedure
     one by one.

   Procedure

     Please refer to RFC2544 section 26.5.

     Additionally, follow the associated procedure (and test Setup) for
     each MPLS forwarding operation one-by-one -



     IP-to-MPLS forwarding         (Imposition)   Section 6.1.1

     MPLS-to-MPLS forwarding       (Swap)         Section 6.1.2

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Disposition)  Section 6.1.3

     MPLS-to-IP forwarding         (Aggregate)    Section 6.1.4





   Reporting Format

     Same as RFC2544, in addition to parameters in Section 4.







Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




7. Security Considerations

   During the course of test, the test topology must be disconnected
   from devices that may forward the test traffic into a production
   environment.

   There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
   this document.

8. IANA Considerations

   There are no considerations for IANA at this time.



































Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007


9.  References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    [RFC3031] Rosen et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
             Architecture", Rosen et al., RFC 3031, August 1999.

   [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Rekhter, Y., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
             Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
             B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

9.2. Informative References

   [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
             Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

   [RFC1242] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
             Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.



Author's Addresses

   Aamer Akhter
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   RTP, NC 27709
   USA

   Phone: 919 392 2564
   Email: aakhter@cisco.com


   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   RTP, NC 27709
   USA

   Phone: 919 392 8558
   Email: rajiva@cisco.com



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

Copyright Statement

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.



Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      MPLS Benchmarking Methodology         November 2007




Acknowledgment

   Special thanks to Scott Bradner for his very insightful comments
   delivered on very short notice.

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).








































Akhter & Asati           Expires May 25, 2008                 [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/