[bmwg] RE: IGP Convergence
sporetsky@quarrytech.com Tue, 31 May 2005 13:15 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dd6al-0007xZ-OE; Tue, 31 May 2005 09:15:35 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DbzrA-0004YD-31 for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:51:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16209 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:51:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Received: from email.quarrytech.com ([4.17.144.4] helo=qtech1.quarrytech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dc0A7-0002gh-GR for bmwg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 08:11:34 -0400
Received: by email.quarrytech.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <LJV25FHP>; Sat, 28 May 2005 07:49:42 -0400
Message-ID: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A068D784B@email.quarrytech.com>
To: diego@ixiacom.com, bmwg@ietf.org, sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 07:49:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ca81a19b939ce054f98c8f830c2d7742
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:15:27 -0400
Cc: acmorton@att.com, kdubray@juniper.net
Subject: [bmwg] RE: IGP Convergence
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1220394764=="
Sender: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Diego and BMWG-ers, Excellent comments below. 1. Methodology doc, page 6: it was a bit confusing if they were talking about reporting the timer values of the DUT or the emulated devices. One can assume it's the DUT but a word or two could make this clearer. 2. Methodology doc, page 6-8: in the test procedure for 4.1.1, steps 4 and 7 mention SONET specifically. Unless these test cases are only for SONET they should make this a more generic statement for removing the layer-1 connection (e.g. disconnect an Ethernet cable). The same issue appears in the other test cases. 3. Methodology doc, page 10: test case 4.4 is missing step 5. In addition, the following notes were made in the IETF-62 meeting minutes: (methodology) - There is an IESG mandate to handle IPv6 on par with IPv4 - There should be a test case with a smaller number of routes (to vet config) - Multiple ingress interfaces must share the Forwarding Capacity, otherwise congestion will result - Establish the Maximum Offered Load with a test up-front to set the baseline To address these I propose the following changes I. Add two references: [5] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, IETF, July 1991. [6] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, IETF, March 1999. II. Modify paragraphs 3.2.6, 3.2.7, and 3.3 to read as follows: 3.2.6 Interface Types All test cases in this methodology document may be executed with any interface type. All interfaces MUST be the same media and Throughout [5,6] for each test case. Media and protocols MUST be configured for minimum failure detection delay to minimize the contribution to the measured Convergence time. For example, configure SONET with minimum carrier-loss-delay or Bi-directional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [7]. 3.2.7 Offered Load The offered Load MUST be the Throughput of the device as defined in [5] and benchmarked in [6] at a fixed packet size. The packet size is selectable and MUST be recorded. The Throughput MUST be measured at the Preferred Egress Interface and the Next-Best Egress Interface. The duration of offered load MUST be greater than the convergence time. The destination addresses for the offered load MUST be distributed such that all routes are matched. This enables Full Convergence [2] to be observed. 3.3 Reporting Format For each test case, it is recommended that the following reporting format be completed: Parameter Units --------- ----- IGP (ISIS or OSPF) Interface Type (GigE, POS, ATM, etc.) Packet Size offered to DUT bytes IGP Routes advertised to DUT number of IGP routes Packet Sampling Interval on Tester seconds or milliseconds IGP Timer Values configured on DUT SONET Failure Indication Delay seconds or milliseconds IGP Hello Timer seconds or milliseconds IGP Dead-Interval seconds or milliseconds LSA Generation Delay seconds or milliseconds LSA Flood Packet Pacing seconds or milliseconds LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing seconds or milliseconds SPF Delay seconds or milliseconds Benchmarks Rate-Derived Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds Loss-Derived Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds Restoration Convergence Time seconds or milliseconds III. In all procedures paragraph 2 changes to: 2. Send offered load at measured Throughput with fixed packet size to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress Interface [2]. instead of: 2. Send traffic at maximum forwarding rate to destinations matching all IGP routes from Tester to DUT on Ingress Interface [2]. IV. In all procedures use of 'SONET' replace with 'link' V. Introduction includes statement: "These methodologies apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic as well as IPv4 and IPv6 IGPs." Please send me any comments to these proposed changes. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Diego Dugatkin [mailto:diego@ixiacom.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 8:23 PM To: bmwg@ietf.org; sporetsky@quarrytech.com Cc: Al Morton; Kevin Dubray Subject: IGP Convergence Please find the following feedback on the IGP Convergence drafts: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth- 05.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth -05.txt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term- 05.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term -05.txt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-0 5.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app- 05.txt> Overall, we find these drafts solid and have only a few small comments: 1. Methodology doc, page 6: it was a bit confusing if they were talking about reporting the timer values of the DUT or the emulated devices. One can assume it's the DUT but a word or two could make this clearer. 2. Methodology doc, page 6-8: in the test procedure for 4.1.1, steps 4 and 7 mention SONET specifically. Unless these test cases are only for SONET they should make this a more generic statement for removing the layer-1 connection (e.g. disconnect an Ethernet cable). The same issue appears in the other test cases. 3. Methodology doc, page 10: test case 4.4 is missing step 5. (I have also sent other comments directly to Scott, discussing precision of the convergence time measurements based on the proposed methodology, and a potential modification to that.) Regards, Dr. Diego Dugatkin Principal Technologist Ixia 26601 West Agoura Road Calabasas, CA 91302 - U.S.A. www.ixiacom.com <http://www.ixiacom.com> Tel. direct: +1 (818) 444-3124
_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] IGP Convergence Diego Dugatkin
- [bmwg] RE: IGP Convergence sporetsky
- [bmwg] RE: IGP Convergence sporetsky