Network Working Group T. Eriksson Internet Draft TeliaSonera Expires: August 2007 R. Papneja Isocore J. Karthik Cisco Systems February 22, 2007 Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence 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. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft. 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 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 Vapiwala, Karthik,Papneja Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 1] Poretsky, Rao, Le Roux Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence as IGP Convergence Benchmarking [3] provide useful terms for LDP 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. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Existing definitions...........................................2 3. Term Definitions...............................................5 4. Security Considerations.......................................13 5. Acknowledgements..............................................13 6. References....................................................13 7. Author's Address..............................................14 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 definitions 2.1 BMWG Convergence Terms Route Convergence Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 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]. Packet Sampling Interval Defined in [3]. Local Interface Defined in [3]. Neighbor Interface Defined in [3]. Remote Interface Defined in [3]. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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] Per-Platform label space Defined in [1] MPLS Node Defined in [1]. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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 See Also: FEC Forwarding Table 3.2 FEC Forwarding Table Definition: Table in which the LSR maintains the next hop information for the Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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 shutdown is considered. Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: FEC Forwarding Table Convergence FEC Convergence 3.4 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence Definition: Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the FEC Forwarding Table to change and re-stabilize. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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 Definition: Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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 Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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) Ingress LSR 3.9 LDP Peer Definition: An adjacent LSR with which LDP adjacency is established Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Targeted LDP Peer 3.10 Targeted LDP Peer Definition: An adjacent LSR (usually more than a hop away) with which LDP adjacency is established through a directed hello message which is unicast. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: LDP Peer 3.11 Targeted FECs Definition: A FECs advertised by a Targeted LDP Peer Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Targeted Peer 3.12 Multi-Labeled Packets Definition: A data packet that has more than one label in the label stack. Discussion: This typically happens when a Targeted Peer is established over a traffic engineered tunnel. Measurement Units: N/A 3.13 Equal Cost Multiple Paths Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence Definition: Existence of multiple IGP paths to reach a particular destination. In this case the depending on the implementation traffic destined to a prefix that has multiple equal cost paths is load balanced across all these paths. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Equal Cost Multiple FECs 3.14 Equal Cost Multiple FECs Definition: Existence multiple FECs to reach a destination. Typically the LSR that has multiple FECs of equal costs does a load balance on all the FECs Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Equal Cost Multiple Paths 3.15 FEC Convergence at Ingress LSR Definition: Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding Table to change and re-stabilize at the Ingress LSR Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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 3.16 FEC Convergence at a midpoint LSR Definition: Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding Table to change and re-stabilize at a midpoint LSR 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 Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 3.17 LDP Advertisement Type Definition: The type of LDP advertisement in operation. Downstream On Demand vs Downstream Unsolicited. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: None. 4. Security Considerations Documents of this type do not directly affect 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 valuable comments to this document. We also thank Scott Poretsky for his contributions to the initial version of this document. 6. References [1] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence [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-11 (work in progress), May 2006. [4] Poretsky, S. and B. Imhoff, "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-11 (work in progress), May 2006. 7. Author's Address Thomas Eriksson TeliaSonera Email: thomas.a.eriksson@teliasonera.com Rajiv Papneja Isocore 12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, STE 100 Reston, VA 20190 USA Phone: +1 703 860 9273 Email: rpapneja@isocore.com Jay Karthik Cisco System 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Phone: +1 978 936 0533 Email: jkarthik@cisco.com Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence Full Copyright Statement 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. 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 Intellectual Property 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 Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Term for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane February 2007 Convergence 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Eriksson, et al Expires August 22, 2007 [Page 16]