idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits17221/draft-parise-ldp-convergence-term-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5036], [RFC6412], [RFC3031]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 728: '... and MUST NOT be connected to device...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 735: '...ial capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in t...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 737: '...from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical i...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 2, 2013) is 3244 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 6412' is mentioned on line 140, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3031' is mentioned on line 675, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 5036' is mentioned on line 694, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 6413' is mentioned on line 116, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4090' is mentioned on line 162, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'LDPv6' is mentioned on line 695, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6' is defined on line 750, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3031' is defined on line 755, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4090' is defined on line 758, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5036' is defined on line 762, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6412' is defined on line 765, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6413' is defined on line 769, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4760' is defined on line 775, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 has been published as RFC 7552 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6412 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6413 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Benchmarking Working Group B. Parise 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Papneja 5 Expires: January 3, 2014 Huawei Technologies 6 July 2, 2013 8 Terminology for Benchmarking LDP Data Plane Convergence 9 draft-parise-ldp-convergence-term-00.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document defines new terms for benchmarking of LDP convergence. 14 These terms are to be used in future methodology documents for 15 benchmarking LDP Convergence. Existing BMWG terminology documents 16 such as IGP Convergence Benchmarking [RFC 6412] provide useful terms 17 for LDP Convergence benchmarking. These terms are discussed in this 18 document. Applicable terminology for MPLS and LDP defined in MPLS WG 19 RFCs [RFC 3031] and [RFC 5036] are also discussed. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2014. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 54 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 55 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 56 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 57 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 58 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 59 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 60 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 61 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 62 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 63 than English. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2. Existing Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.1. BMWG Convergence Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.2. MPLS/LDP Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3. Term Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 3.1. LDP Binding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 3.2. FEC Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 3.3. FEC Convergence Event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 3.4. FEC Forwarding Table Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 3.5. FEC Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 3.6. Multiple Next-Hop FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 3.7. Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 3.8. Egress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 3.9. LDP Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 3.10. Targeted LDP Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 3.11. Targeted FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 3.12. Multi-Labeled Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 3.13. Equal Cost Multiple Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 3.14. Equal Cost Multiple FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 3.15. FEC Convergence at Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 3.16. FEC Convergence at Midpoint LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 88 3.17. LDP Advertisement Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 3.18. Label Merging LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 90 3.19. Non-merging LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 91 3.20. LDPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 92 4. Factors impacting Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 93 4.1. Interaction with Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 94 4.2. Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 95 4.3. TCP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 96 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 97 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 98 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 99 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 100 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 101 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 103 1. Introduction 105 This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking LDP 106 Convergence. An accompanying document will describe the methodology 107 for doing the benchmarking. The main motivation for doing this work 108 is the increased focus on lowering convergence time for LDP as an 109 alternative to other solutions such as MPLS Fast Reroute (i.e. 110 protection techniques using RSVP-TE extensions). 112 The purpose of this document is to find existing terminology as well 113 as define new terminology when needed terms are not available. The 114 terminology will support the methodology that will be based on black- 115 box testing of the LDP dataplane. The approach is very similar to 116 the one found in [RFC 6412] and [RFC 6413]. 118 2. Existing Definitions 120 2.1. BMWG Convergence Terms 122 This document uses existing terminology defined in other IETF 123 documents. These include the following: 125 Route Convergence Defined in [RFC 6412] 126 Convergence Packet Loss Defined in [RFC 6412] 127 Convergence Event Instant Defined in [RFC 6412] 128 Convergence Recovery Instant Defined in [RFC 6412] 129 Rate-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] 130 Convergence Event Transition Defined in [RFC 6412] 131 Convergence Recovery Transition Defined in [RFC 6412] 132 Loss-Derived Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] 133 Restoration Convergence Time Defined in [RFC 6412] 134 Packet Sampling Interval Defined in [RFC 6412] 135 Local Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] 136 Neighbor Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] 137 Remote Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] 138 Preferred Egress Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] 139 Next-Best Egress Interface Defined in [RFC 6412] 140 Stale Forwarding Defined in [RFC 6412] 142 2.2. MPLS/LDP Terms 143 Label Defined in [RFC 3031] 144 FEC Defined in [RFC 3031] 145 Label Withdraw Defined in [RFC 5036] 146 LSP Defined in [RFC 3031] 147 LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] 148 LDP Identifier Defined in [RFC 5036] 149 LDP Session Defined in [RFC 5036] 150 Per-Interface Label Space Defined in [RFC 3031] 151 Per-Platform Label Space Defined in [RFC 3031] 152 MPLS Node Defined in [RFC 3031] 153 MPLS Edge Node Defined in [RFC 3031] 154 MPLS Egress Node Defined in [RFC 3031] 155 MPLS Ingress Node Defined in [RFC 3031] 156 Upstream LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] 157 Downstream LSR Defined in [RFC 3031] 158 Local Repair Defined in [RFC 4090] 159 PLR Defined in [RFC 4090] 160 One-to-One Backup Defined in [RFC 4090] 161 Detour LSP Defined in [RFC 4090] 162 Backup Path Defined in [RFC 4090] 163 Downstream-on-Demand Defined in [RFC 3031] 164 Unsolicited Downstream Defined in [RFC 3031] 165 Independent Label Distribution Control 166 Defined in [RFC 5036] 167 Address Family Defined in [RFC 5036] 168 IGP Update Message ISIS/OSPF LSA 170 3. Term Definitions 172 3.1. LDP Binding Table 174 Definition: 176 Table in which the LSR maintains all learned labels. It consists 177 of the prefix and label information bound to a peer's LDP 178 identifier and the list of sent and received bindings/peer. 180 Discussion: 182 None 184 Measurement Units: 186 N/A 188 Issues: 190 None 192 See Also: 194 FEC Forwarding Table 196 3.2. FEC Forwarding Table 198 Definition: 200 Table in which the LSR maintains the next hop information for the 201 particular FEC with the associated outgoing label and interface. 202 The information used for setting up the FEC forwarding table is 203 retrieved from the LDP Binding Table. 205 Discussion: 207 None 209 Measurement Units: 211 N/A 213 Issues: 215 None 217 See Also: 219 LDP Binding Table 221 3.3. FEC Convergence Event 223 Definition: 225 The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network 226 that results in a change to an LSR's LDP next-hop forwarding. 228 Discussion: 230 Convergence Events include link loss, routing protocol session 231 loss, router failure, and better next-hop. Also, different types 232 of administrative events such as interface shutdown is considered. 234 Measurement Units: 236 N/A 238 Issues: 240 None 242 See Also: 244 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 246 FEC Convergence 248 3.4. FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 250 Definition: 252 Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the FEC 253 Forwarding Table to change and re-stabilize. 255 Discussion: 257 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence updates after the RIB and LDP 258 Binding Table update due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC 259 Forwarding Table Convergence can be observed externally by the 260 rerouting of data Traffic to a new egress interface. 262 Measurement Units: 264 seconds 266 Issues: 268 None 270 See Also: 272 FEC Forwarding Table 274 FEC Convergence Event 276 FEC Convergence 278 3.5. FEC Convergence 280 Definition: 282 Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding 283 Table to change and re-stabilize. 285 Discussion: 287 FEC Convergence is a change in an LDP Binding of a prefix and 288 label to a peer's LDP Identifier. This change can be an update or 289 recovery due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC Convergence is an 290 LSR action made prior to FEC Forwarding Table Convergence. FEC 291 Convergence is not an externally observable Black-Box measurement. 293 Measurement Units: 295 N/A 297 Issues: 299 Where is LDP Identifier defined? Where is LDP Binding defined? 301 See Also: 303 FEC Binding Table 305 FEC Convergence Event 307 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 309 3.6. Multiple Next-Hop FEC 311 Definition: 313 A FEC with more than one next-hop and associated outgoing label 314 and interface. 316 Discussion: 318 A Multiple Next-Hop FEC can be verified from the FEC Forwarding 319 Table and from externally observing traffic being forwarded to a 320 FEC on one or more interfaces. 322 Measurement Units: 324 N/A 326 Issues: 328 None 330 See Also: 332 FEC Forwarding Table 334 3.7. Ingress LSR 336 Definition: 338 An MPLS ingress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 339 packets. 341 Discussion: 343 None 345 Measurement Units: 347 N/A 349 Issues: 351 None 353 See Also: 355 MPLS Node 357 MPLS Edge Node 359 MPLS Egress Node 361 MPLS Ingress Node 363 Label Switching Router (LSR) 365 Egress LSR 367 3.8. Egress LSR 369 Definition: 371 An MPLS Egress node which is capable of forwarding native L3 372 packets. 374 Discussion: 376 None 378 Measurement Units: 380 N/A 382 Issues: 384 None 386 See Also: 388 MPLS Node 390 MPLS Edge Node 392 MPLS Egress Node 394 MPLS Ingress Node 396 Label Switching Router (LSR) 398 Ingress LSR 400 3.9. LDP Peer 402 Definition: 404 An adjacent LSR with which LDP adjacency is established 406 Discussion: 408 None 410 Measurement Units: 412 N/A 414 Issues: 416 None 418 See Also: 420 Targeted LDP Peer 422 3.10. Targeted LDP Peer 424 Definition: 426 An adjacent LSR (usually more than a hop away) with which LDP 427 adjacency is established through a directed hello message which is 428 unicast. 430 Discussion: 432 None 434 Measurement Units: 436 N/A 438 Issues: 440 None 442 See Also: 444 LDP Peer 446 3.11. Targeted FECs 448 Definition: 450 The FECs advertised by a Targeted LDP Peer 452 Discussion: 454 None 456 Measurement Units: 458 N/A 460 Issues: 462 None 464 See Also: 466 Targeted Peer 468 3.12. Multi-Labeled Packets 470 Definition: 472 A data packet that has more than one label in the label stack. 474 Discussion: 476 This typically happens when a Targeted Peer is established over a 477 traffic engineered tunnel. 479 Measurement Units: 481 N/A 483 Issues: 485 None 487 See Also: 489 None 491 3.13. Equal Cost Multiple Paths 493 Definition: 495 Existence of multiple IGP paths to reach a particular destination. 496 In this case the depending on the implementation traffic destined 497 to a prefix that has multiple equal cost paths is load balanced 498 across all these paths. 500 Discussion: 502 None 504 Measurement Units: 506 N/A 508 Issues: 510 None 512 See Also: 514 Equal Cost Multiple FECs 516 3.14. Equal Cost Multiple FECs 518 Definition: 520 Existence of multiple to reach a destination. Typically the LSR 521 that has multiple FECs of equal costs does a load balance on all 522 the FECs 524 Discussion: 526 None 528 Measurement Units: 530 N/A 532 Issues: 534 None 536 See Also: 538 Equal Cost Multiple Paths 540 3.15. FEC Convergence at Ingress LSR 542 Definition: 544 Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding 545 Table to change and re-stabilize at the Ingress LSR 547 Discussion: 549 FEC Convergence is a change in an LDP Binding of a prefix and 550 label to a peer's LDP Identifier. This change can be an update or 551 recovery due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC Convergence is an 552 LSR action made prior to FEC Forwarding Table Convergence. FEC 553 Convergence is not an externally observable Black-Box measurement. 555 Measurement Units: 557 N/A 559 Issues: 561 Where is LDP Identifier defined? Where is LDP Binding defined? 563 See Also: 565 LDP Binding Table 567 FEC Convergence Event 569 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 571 3.16. FEC Convergence at Midpoint LSR 573 Definition: 575 Recovery from a FEC Convergence Event that causes the LDP Binding 576 Table to change and re-stabilize at a Midpoint LSR 578 Discussion: 580 FEC Convergence is a change in an LDP Binding of a prefix and 581 label to a peer's LDP Identifier. This change can be an update or 582 recovery due to a FEC Convergence Event. FEC Convergence is an 583 LSR action made prior to FEC Forwarding Table Convergence. FEC 584 Convergence is not an externally observable Black-Box measurement. 586 Measurement Units: 588 N/A 590 Issues: 592 Where is LDP Identifier defined? Where is LDP Binding defined? 594 See Also: 596 LDP Binding Table 598 FEC Convergence Event 600 FEC Forwarding Table Convergence 602 3.17. LDP Advertisement Type 604 Definition: 606 The type of LDP advertisement in operation. Downstream On Demand 607 vs Downstream Unsolicited. 609 Discussion: 611 None 613 Measurement Units: 615 N/A 617 Issues: 619 None 621 See Also: 623 None 625 3.18. Label Merging LSR 627 Definition: 629 A LSR which is capable of sending multiple packets out of the same 630 outgoing interface with the same label even though it receives 631 these packets from different incoming interfaces and may also 632 receive them with the same lane 634 Discussion: 636 With label merging the LSR need to send a single label per FEC and 637 also on the receiving end the number of incoming labels per FEC is 638 never larger than the number of label distribution adjacencies 640 Measurement Units: 642 N/A 644 Issues: 646 There maybe be scenarios where a Merging LSR is capable of merging 647 only a subset of incoming labels into a single outgoing label 649 See Also: 651 Non-Merging LSR and [RFC 3031] 653 3.19. Non-merging LSR 655 Definition: 657 A LSR which forwards packets with multiple outgoing labels when it 658 receives packets from the same FEC with different incoming labels 660 Discussion: 662 Without label merging the number of outgoing labels per FEC could 663 be as large as the number of nodes in the network 665 Measurement Units: 667 N/A 669 Issues: 671 None 673 See Also: 675 Label Merging LSR and [RFC 3031] 677 3.20. LDPv6 679 Definition: 681 This term implies forwarding of IPv6 packets as detailed in [RFC 682 5036] 684 Discussion: 686 None 688 Measurement Units: 690 N/A 692 Issues: 694 The current specification [RFC 5036] has certain gaps as detailed 695 in [LDPv6]. Once its standardized we will extend the scope to 696 cover those details. 698 See Also: 700 None 702 4. Factors impacting Convergence 704 4.1. Interaction with Other Protocols 706 LDP convergence must include the affect of interaction with IGPs. 707 All test reports must include the IGPs provisioned in the test and 708 their associated parameters 710 4.2. Timers 712 LDP convergence is impacted by the Hold and Keepalive Timers. Test 713 reports must include all the relevant timer values 715 4.3. TCP Parameters 717 As LDP uses TCP for sessions, all relevant TCP session parameters 718 must be reported 720 5. Security Considerations 722 Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to 723 technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory 724 environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints 725 specified in the sections above. 727 The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup 728 and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test 729 traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test 730 management network. 732 Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying 733 solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. 735 Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for 736 benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising 737 from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production 738 networks. 740 6. Acknowledgements 742 We thank Al Morton for providing valuable comments to this document. 743 We also thank Scott Poretsky for his contributions to the initial 744 version of this document. 746 7. References 748 7.1. Normative References 750 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] 751 Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, 752 "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-08 753 (work in progress), February 2013. 755 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 756 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. 758 [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute 759 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, 760 May 2005. 762 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP 763 Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. 765 [RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology 766 for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route 767 Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011. 769 [RFC6413] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Benchmarking 770 Methodology for Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route 771 Convergence", RFC 6413, November 2011. 773 7.2. Informative References 775 [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, 776 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, 777 January 2007. 779 Authors' Addresses 781 Bhavani Parise 782 Cisco Systems 784 Email: bhavani@cisco.com 786 Rajiv Papneja 787 Huawei Technologies 789 Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com