1. Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms
Jerry Perser
David Newman
Sumit Khurana
Shobha Erramilli
Scott Poretsky
57th IETF
Vienna, Austria

2. Changes to dsmterm-07
Added initial copyright statement to the first page.
Took the first paragraph of Introduction and created the Abstract.
Reworded the discussion of Forwarding Congestion.
Changed Conforming and Nonconforming to Conforming Packet and Nonconforming Packet.
Added a discussion to Duplicate Packet. We only had a definition before.
Added RFC2119 to the reference section.

3. Methodology - Goals
Purpose: provide methodologies to benchmark devices "capable of delivering the specific packet forwarding treatment indicated by the DS field value" [RFC2474].
Benchmark: Device’s ability to meet configured PHBs (the Expected Vector), not QoS mechanisms.
Possible to compare performance of routers implementing different mechanisms.
Goals consistent with RFC2474:
“A vendor MAY use any [QoS] algorithm that satisfies the definition of the PHB according to the standard. The node's capabilities and its particular configuration determine the different ways that packets can be treated."

4. Methodology – General Procedure
RFC 2475: “The most simple example of a PHB is one which guarantees a minimal bandwidth allocation of X% of a link (over some reasonable time interval) to a behavior aggregate. This PHB can be fairly easily measured under a variety of competing traffic conditions.”
Test cases to benchmark PHBs require:
Selection Codepoint Set
Selection and configuration of Expected Vectors
Sourcing of Offered Vector
Measurement of all Output Vectors

5. Methodology – Test Cases
EF PHB
EF PHB Receives Absolute Priority
EF PHB Forwarding Vector Matches the Expected Vector
EF PHB Rate-Limiting (with Packet Drops or Remarking)
EF PHB Does not Waste Bandwidth
AF PHB
AF PHB Forwarding Vectors Match the Expected Vectors
AF PHBs are Fairly Treated with EF PHB
AF PHB Rate-Limiting (with Packet Drops or Remarking)
AF PHB Congestion Avoidance
CS PHB
CS PHB is Backwards Compatible with IP Precedence
CS PHB Forwarding Vectors Match the Expected Vectors
CS PHBs are Fairly Treated with EF and AF PHB
CS PHB Rate-Limiting (with Packet Drops or Remarking)
CS PHB Congestion Avoidance
Default PHB
Unmarked Packets Receive Best-Effort Forwarding
Unmarked Packets are Tail-Dropped
Configured
Expected
Vector
DUT
Offered
Vector 1
Test
Equip
Forwarding
Vector
Offered
Vector 2

6. Any Questions ?