IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology Ciprian Popoviciu, Ahmed Hamza, Gunter Van de Velde, Diego Dugatkin IETF 68, March 20th 2007 Prague draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Agenda Overview Last Call comments Next steps draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 “A document providing guidance in the area of IPv6 benchmarking would be welcome to organizations (including the US federal agencies mandated to deploy IPv6 on their backbone networks) attempting to understand why and how network device IPv6 performance must be tested. A document that attempts to define which areas need to considered and which describes how to test/benchmark these areas may be well received.” Bill Cerveny Overview: Complements RFC2544 by: Adds benchmarking methodology recommendations that address specific aspects of IPv6 protocol architecture Provide an updated list of benchmarks based on the experience gained with applying the RFC2544 recommendations to IPv4 Adds information related to SONET as a popular media type not mentioned by RFC2544 Went through several rounds of review within BMWG and v6ops WG draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Overview (cont.) Interest Expressed by networking and test tool vendors There is at least one implementation of the draft in a benchmarking suite Used in benchmarking related to the OMB and DoD IPv6 mandates. Timeline Voted WG Working Item during the Montreal IETF 66th meeting Currently in Last Call until March 20 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Actions on Last Call Comments The LC comments relate primarily to frame size considerations (which are IP version agnostic) and not to the IPv6 specific benchmarking recommendations. Based on the comment from David Newman and in observance of RFC1242, we will change "maximum throughput" to "throughput" in Appendix A.1 and A.2. Based on David Newman's suggestion, we will round down the theoretical rates listed in Appendix A.1 and will include a note regarding this round down as well as a reference to the tolerance due to clock slip Dear All,   One of the topics discussed at IETF65 was related to the IANA section for this draft and some discussion is included in the BMWG proceedings. There was a bias for obtaining a dedicated IPv6 range in similar fashion as what is available for IPv4 benchmarking through rfc2544. draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Actions on Last Call Comments (cont.) Minimum Frame size for SONET. One proposal is 48 bytes. Based on RFC2544, IPv6 main header 40 bytes + 8 bytes UDP header (ECHO) for 56 bytes. Maximum frame size for SONET. In the Appendix we list 4096 bytes. Proposal is to add the note “Larger values might be supported by the various products. The maximum supported frame size should be used in benchmarking in addition to the recommended frame sizes." Maximum frame size for Ethernet. The Appendix lists frame sizes up to 9216 bytes. Should we include 2000 explicitly in order to have the data point for the size recommended by 802.3as? Dear All,   One of the topics discussed at IETF65 was related to the IANA section for this draft and some discussion is included in the BMWG proceedings. There was a bias for obtaining a dedicated IPv6 range in similar fashion as what is available for IPv4 benchmarking through rfc2544. draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Next Steps The LC comments will be integrated in version -02 Close LC Dear All,   One of the topics discussed at IETF65 was related to the IANA section for this draft and some discussion is included in the BMWG proceedings. There was a bias for obtaining a dedicated IPv6 range in similar fashion as what is available for IPv4 benchmarking through rfc2544. draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 THANK YOU! draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 Document Goals: Address a very acute and growing need for recommendations on evaluating network element performance for IPv6 deployments A complement rather than a replacement of RFC2544 in accordance with BMWG strategy Provide the additional, IPv6 specific guidelines to IP benchmarking while indicating the aspects of RFC2544 that are IP version independent Maintain the structure and spirit of RFC2544. draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01

draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01 WG Feedback: List of Reviewers from BMWG and V6OPS WGs : Scott Bradner, Al Morton, Fred Baker, Pekka Savola, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Benoit Lourdelet, Daniel Roesen, Jerry Perser, William Cerveny , Athanassios Liakopoulos, Rajiv Papneja, Sven Lanckmans, Silvija Dry, Aamer Akhter, Rajiv Asati, David Newman, Jim Mcquaid, Timmons Player, Miles McCredie, Curtis Villamizar. IPv6 and Test tools experts reviewed and provided valuable feedback off the BMWG alias. Thank you to all reviewers! draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01