Benchmarking Working Group B. Parise Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track R. Papneja Expires: January 4, 2014 Huawei Technologies July 3, 2013 Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence draft-parise-bmwg-ldp-convergence-term-00.txt 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 [RFC 6412] 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 [RFC 3031] and [RFC 5036] are also discussed. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Existing Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. BMWG Convergence Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. FEC Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. Multiple Next-Hop FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7. Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.8. Egress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.9. LDP Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.10. Targeted LDP Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.11. Targeted FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.12. Multi-Labeled Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.13. Equal Cost Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.14. Equal Cost Multiple FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.15. FEC Convergence at Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.16. FEC Convergence at Midpoint LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.17. LDP Advertisement Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.18. Label Merging LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.19. Non-merging LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.20. LDPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Factors impacting Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1. Interaction with Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2. Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. TCP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 1. Introduction This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking LDP Convergence. An accompanying document will describe the methodology for doing the benchmarking. 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 document 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 [RFC 6412] and [RFC 6413]. 2. Existing Definitions 2.1. BMWG Convergence Terms This document uses existing terminology defined in other IETF documents. These include the following: Route Convergence Defined in [RFC 6412] Convergence Packet Loss Defined in [RFC 6412] Convergence Event Instant Defined in [RFC 6412] Convergence Recovery Instant Defined in [RFC 6412] Rate-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] Convergence Event Transition Defined in [RFC 6412] Convergence Recovery Transition Defined in [RFC 6412] Loss-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] Restoration Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] Packet Sampling Interval Defined in [RFC 6412] Local Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] Neighbor Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] Remote Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] Preferred Egress Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] Next-Best Egress Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] Stale Forwarding Defined in [RFC 6412] 2.2. MPLS/LDP Terms Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 Label Defined in [RFC 3031] FEC Defined in [RFC 3031] Label Withdraw Defined in [RFC 5036] LSP Defined in [RFC 3031] LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] LDP Identifier Defined in [RFC 5036] LDP Session Defined in [RFC 5036] Per-Interface Label Space Defined in [RFC 3031] Per-Platform Label Space Defined in [RFC 3031] MPLS Node Defined in [RFC 3031] MPLS Edge Node Defined in [RFC 3031] MPLS Egress Node Defined in [RFC 3031] MPLS Ingress Node Defined in [RFC 3031] Upstream LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] Downstream LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] Local Repair Defined in [RFC 4090] PLR Defined in [RFC 4090] One-to-One Backup Defined in [RFC 4090] Detour LSP Defined in [RFC 4090] Backup Path Defined in [RFC 4090] Downstream-on-Demand Defined in [RFC 3031] Unsolicited Downstream Defined in [RFC 3031] Independent Label Distribution Control Defined in [RFC 5036] Address Family Defined in [RFC 5036] IGP Update Message ISIS/OSPF LSA 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: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 None 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 shutdown is considered. Measurement Units: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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. 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: seconds Issues: None See Also: FEC Forwarding Table FEC Convergence Event FEC Convergence 3.5. FEC Convergence Definition: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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: FEC Binding Table FEC Convergence Event FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 3.6. Multiple Next-Hop FEC 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: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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. Discussion: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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 Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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. Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: LDP Peer 3.11. Targeted FECs Definition: The FECs advertised by a Targeted LDP Peer Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Targeted Peer Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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 Issues: None See Also: None 3.13. Equal Cost Multiple Paths 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: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 Equal Cost Multiple FECs 3.14. Equal Cost Multiple FECs Definition: Existence of multiple 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 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: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 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 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 3.17. LDP Advertisement Type Definition: The type of LDP advertisement in operation. Downstream On Demand vs Downstream Unsolicited. Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: None 3.18. Label Merging LSR Definition: A LSR which is capable of sending multiple packets out of the same outgoing interface with the same label even though it receives these packets from different incoming interfaces and may also receive them with the same lane Discussion: With label merging the LSR need to send a single label per FEC and also on the receiving end the number of incoming labels per FEC is never larger than the number of label distribution adjacencies Measurement Units: N/A Issues: There maybe be scenarios where a Merging LSR is capable of merging only a subset of incoming labels into a single outgoing label See Also: Non-Merging LSR and [RFC 3031] Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 3.19. Non-merging LSR Definition: A LSR which forwards packets with multiple outgoing labels when it receives packets from the same FEC with different incoming labels Discussion: Without label merging the number of outgoing labels per FEC could be as large as the number of nodes in the network Measurement Units: N/A Issues: None See Also: Label Merging LSR and [RFC 3031] 3.20. LDPv6 Definition: This term implies forwarding of IPv6 packets as detailed in [RFC 5036] Discussion: None Measurement Units: N/A Issues: The current specification [RFC 5036] has certain gaps as detailed in [LDPv6]. Once its standardized we will extend the scope to cover those details. See Also: Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 16] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 None 4. Factors impacting Convergence 4.1. Interaction with Other Protocols LDP convergence must include the affect of interaction with IGPs. All test reports must include the IGPs provisioned in the test and their associated parameters 4.2. Timers LDP convergence is impacted by the Hold and Keepalive Timers. Test reports must include all the relevant timer values 4.3. TCP Parameters As LDP uses TCP for sessions, all relevant TCP session parameters must be reported 5. Security Considerations Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections above. The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test management network. Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production networks. 6. 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. Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 17] Internet-Draft LDP Benchmarking Terminology July 2013 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-08 (work in progress), February 2013. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. [RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011. [RFC6413] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Benchmarking Methodology for Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route Convergence", RFC 6413, November 2011. 7.2. Informative References [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007. Authors' Addresses Bhavani Parise Cisco Systems Email: bhavani@cisco.com Rajiv Papneja Huawei Technologies Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com Parise & Papneja Expires January 4, 2014 [Page 18]