Network Working Group T. Eriksson Internet-Draft TeliaSonera Expires: April 28, 2005 S. Poretsky Quarry Technologies R. Papneja Isocore October 28, 2004 Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-02.txt Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 April 28, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Abstract This document defines new terms for benchmarking of LDP convergence. These terms are to be used in future methodology documents for benchmarking LDP Convergence. Existing BMWG terminology documents such as IGP Convergence Benchmarking [3] provide useful terms for LDP Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Convergence benchmarking. These terms are discussed in this document. Applicable terminology for MPLS and LDP defined in MPLS WG RFCs [1] and [2] is also discussed. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Existing Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 BMWG Convergence Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 MPLS/LDP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 LDP Binding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 FEC Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 FEC Convergence Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5 FEC Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6 Multiple Next-Hop FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.7 Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.8 Egress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 11 Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 1. Introduction This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking LDP Convergence. An accompanying document describes the methodology for doing the benchmarking [TBD]. The main motivation for doing this work is the increased focus on lowering convergence time for LDP as an alternative to other solutions such as MPLS Fast Reroute (i.e. protection techniques using RSVP-TE extensions). The purpose of this documents is to find existing terminology as well as define new terminology when needed terms are not available. The terminology will support the methodology that will be based on black-box testing of the LDP dataplane. The approach is very similar to the one found in [3] and [4]. 2. Existing Terminology 2.1 BMWG Convergence Terms Route Convergence Defined in [3]. Convergence Packet Loss Defined in [3]. Convergence Event Instant Defined in [3]. Convergence Recovery Instant Defined in [3]. Rate-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [3]. Convergence Event Transition Defined in [3]. Convergence Recovery Transition Defined in [3]. Loss-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [3]. Restoration Convergence Time Defined in [3]. Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Packet Sampling Interval Defined in [3]. Local Interface Defined in [3]. Neighbor Interface Defined in [3]. Remote Interface Defined in [3]. Preferred Egress Interface Defined in [3]. Next-Best Egress Interface Defined in [3]. Stale Forwarding Defined in [3]. 2.2 MPLS/LDP Terms Label Defined in [1]. FEC Defined in [1]. Label Withdraw Defined in [2]. IGP update message Typically an IS-IS LSP or an OSPF LSA that contains information about a change in the IGP topology. LSP Defined in [1]. LSR Defined in [1]. Per-Interface label space Defined in [1] Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Per-Platform label space Defined in [1] MPLS Node Defined in [1]. MPLS Edge Node Defined in [1]. MPLS Node Defined in [1]. MPLS Edge Node Defined in [1]. MPLS EgressNode Defined in [1]. MPLS Ingress Node Defined in [1]. Upstream LSR Defined in [1]. Downstream LSR Defined in [1]. 3. Term Definitions 3.1 LDP Binding Table Definition: Table in which the LSR maintains all learned labels. It consists of the prefix and label information bound to a peer's LDP identifier and the list of sent and received bindings/peer. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 See Also: FEC Forwarding Table 3.2 FEC Forwarding Table Definition: Table in which the LSR maintains the next hop information for the particular FEC with the associated outgoing label and interface. The information used for setting up the FEC forwarding table is retrieved from the LDP Binding Table. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: LDP Binding Table 3.3 FEC Convergence Event Definition: The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network that results in a change to an LSR's LDP next-hop forwarding. Discussion: Convergence Events include link loss, routing protocol session loss, router failure, and better next-hop. Also, different types of administrative events such as interface shoutdown is considered. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: FEC Forwarding Table Convergence FEC Convergence 3.4 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Definition: Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the FEC Forwarding Table to change and re-stabilize. Discussion: FEC Forwarding Table Convergence updates after the RIB and LDP Binding Table update due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC Forwarding Table Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting of data Traffic to a new egress interface. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: FEC Forwarding Table FEC Convergence Event FEC Convergence 3.5 FEC Convergence Definition: Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding Table to change and re-stabilize. Discussion: FEC Convergence is a change in an LDP Binding of a prefix and label to a peer's LDP Identifier. This change can be an update or recovery due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC Convergence is an LSR action made prior to FEC Forwarding Table Convergence. FEC Convergence is not an externally observable Black-Box measurement. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: Where is LDP Identifier defined? Where is LDP Binding defined? See Also: LDP Binding Table FEC Convergence Event FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 3.6 Multiple Next-Hop FEC Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Definition: A FEC with more than one next-hop and associated outgoing label and interface. Discussion: A Multiple Next-Hop FEC can be verified from the FEC Forwarding Table and from externally observing traffic being forwarded to a FEC on one or more interfaces. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: FEC Forwarding Table 3.7 Ingress LSR Definition: An MPLS ingress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 packets. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: MPLS Node MPLS Edge Node MPLS Egress Node MPLS Ingress Node Label Switching Router (LSR) Egress LSR 3.8 Egress LSR Definition: An MPLS Egress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 packets. Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: MPLS Node MPLS Edge Node MPLS Egress Node MPLS Ingress Node Label Switching Router (LSR) Ingress LSR 4. Security Considerations Documents of this type do not directly effect the security of the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating networks. 5. Acknowledgements We thank Al Morton for providing valuble comments to this document. 6 References [1] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [2] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. [3] Poretsky, S., "Terminology for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-04 (work in progress), October 2004. [4] Poretsky, S. and B. Imhoff, "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-04 (work in progress), October 2004. Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 Authors' Addresses Thomas Eriksson TeliaSonera EMail: thomas.a.eriksson@teliasonera.com Scott Poretsky Quarry Technologies EMail: sporetsky@quarrytech.com Rajiv Papneja Isocore EMail: rpapneja@isocore.com Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Conv October 2004 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 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 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 Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Eriksson, et al. Expires April 28, 2005 [Page 11]