1 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth MPLS Benchmarking Methodology Aamer Akhter / Rajiv Asati / Mohamed Khalid / cisco Systems

222 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Draft Goals Describes MPLS forwarding benchmarking Currently simple forwarding plane Builds on RFC2544, RFC1242

333 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Need for This Draft RFC2544 does not cover some MPLS specific situations Multi-label imposition Multi-label disposition Explicit-null handling EXP bits assignment

444 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Current State | | | Test | | | | Test | | Port A DA1 DB Port B1 | | | | DUT | | Test | | | | Test | | Port A DA2 DB Port B2 | | | | | | | | Test | | Test | | Port Ax | | Port Bx | Topology #1, Basic Forwarding IP lookup / imposition / etc

555 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Current State - Scope Unidirectional and Bidirectional single and multi-label imposition Unidirectional and Bidirectional single and multi-label disposition Aggregate Labels Label means doing an additional IP lookup EXP bit imposition, disposition and mapping from.p / DSCP Delay measurements ‘Negative’ envelope conditions Fragmentation cases

666 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Current State Tests are not fully complete Titles are there just need to put in the text Have received some comments on list Update (-01) has been submitted with more text and revisions based on comments.

777 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Query to BMWG Need your comments!!! IMIX Should we start an IMIX assessment / definition? ‘Negative’ Test Cases The purpose is to probe the ‘failure envelope’ Delay Cases Requirement of IGP All MPLS deployments use an IGP, although it is possible not to use an IGP

888 IETF-66draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth Next Steps Need more comments Complete more tests get document ready for WG adoption