Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-00.txt

Dear BMWG Chairs and List Members,

First all, I am very happy for the adoption of our draft and thank you 
for all your support!

We have made the following main changes:

    Added measurement setup for Stateful NAT64 gateways.

    Consistency checking and corrections.

As for the nit checker report regarding the non-RFC-6890 compliant IP 
addresses, the following explanation was added:

    Note: We are fully aware of [RFC6890  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6890>] special purpose IP address
    ranges.  The [RFC1918  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918>] private IP addresses are used to facilitate an
    easy understanding of the example.  And we consider the usage of the
    IP addresses reserved for benchmarking absolutely legitimate.

We would be happy to receive reviews and recommendations how to improve 
it. We are ready to publish an improved version before the cutoff date 
of IETF 114 if needed.

I am in Tokyo as a guest researcher at the Research Laboratory of 
Internet Initiative Japan from September 15 to December 15 to do 
research in the topic of benchmarking stateful NAT64 gateways. I plan to 
validate the methodology described in our draft by benchmarking various 
stateful NAT64 gateway implementations.

So this is the best time, if you could recommend any improvement for the 
methodology. :-)

Best regards

Gábor

On 9/25/2022 3:02 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology WG of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
>          Authors         : Gabor Lencse
>                            Keiichi Shima
>    Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-00.txt
>    Pages           : 23
>    Date            : 2022-09-24
>
> Abstract:
>     RFC 2544 has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
>     interconnect devices.  RFC 5180 addressed IPv6 specificities and it
>     also provided a technology update, but excluded IPv6 transition
>     technologies.  RFC 8219 addressed IPv6 transition technologies,
>     including stateful NAT64.  However, none of them discussed how to
>     apply RFC 4814 pseudorandom port numbers to any stateful NATxy
>     (NAT44, NAT64, NAT66) technologies.  We discuss why using
>     pseudorandom port numbers with stateful NATxy gateways is a difficult
>     problem.  We recommend a solution limiting the port number ranges and
>     using two phases: the preliminary test phase and the real test phase.
>     We show how the classic performance measurement procedures (e.g.
>     throughput, frame loss rate, latency, etc.) can be carried out.  We
>     also define new performance metrics and measurement procedures for
>     maximum connection establishment rate, connection tear down rate and
>     connection tracking table capacity measurements.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful/
>
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-00
>
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg