Document Action: 'MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows' to Informational RFC

The IESG <> Fri, 25 September 2009 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 30) id 63D2A3A68D4; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-idtracker: yes
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows' to Informational RFC
Message-Id: <>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:46:12 -0700
Cc: bmwg chair <>, Internet Architecture Board <>, bmwg mailing list <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:46:12 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows '
   <draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-06.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

Technical Summary
Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the use
of MPLS as a forwarding architecture in new and existing network
designs. However, there is no standard method defined to compare
and contrast
the foundational MPLS packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document specifies a methodology using common criteria
(such as throughput, latency, frame loss rate, system recovery,
reset etc.) to evaluate MPLS forwarding of any implementation.

The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific
to the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. The methods
described are limited in scope to the most common MPLS packet
forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements in a
laboratory setting. This document focuses on the MPLS label
stack having only
one entry, as it is the fundamental of MPLS forwarding.

Working Group Summary
Development of this memo was smooth.
The memo has been refined in terms of its coverage and detail
over the last 3 years, with good working group and external reviewer
comments addressed.

Document Quality
The authors are not aware of fully functional implementation of this
method, although a number of test tool vendors are considering it, with
variable levels of commitment. Many WG members have thoroughly reviewed
memo. Reviewers of previous versions include: Carlos Pignataro,
Rodney Dunn, Scott Bradner, and Bill Cerveny.