70 likes | 187 Views
Sub-IP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.txt BMWG, IETF-69 Chicago July 2007 Author Team: Poretsky, Papneja, Karthik, Vapiwala, LeRoux, Rao. Scope of Work Item.
E N D
Sub-IP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarkingdraft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.txtBMWG, IETF-69ChicagoJuly 2007Author Team: Poretsky, Papneja, Karthik, Vapiwala, LeRoux, Rao
Scope of Work Item • Common terminology and metrics for benchmarking the performance of sub-IP layer protection mechanisms • Benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer • avoids dependence on specific sub-IP protection mechanisms. • Terminology applied to separate Methodology documents for different sub-IP layer protection mechanisms • Multi-Protocol Label Switching Fast Reroute (MPLS-FRR) • Automatic Protection Switching (APS) • Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) • Stateful High Availability (HA) Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.txt Benchmarking Terminology For Protection Performance draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.txt . . . Other Methodologies
Terminology Changes from Rev 01 to 02 • Added new method for Failover Time calculation • Timestamp-Based Method (TBM) • Requires Payload to include Timestamp and Sequence Number • Accounts for multiple failure modes: Loss, Reorder, Duplicate • Existing Methods were retained: • Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM) • Packet-Based Loss Method (PBLM) • Section 2, Existing Definitions, updated to include more terms: Out-of-order Packet [RFC 4689, section 3.3.2] Duplicate Packet [RFC 4689, section 3.3.3] Packet Loss [BMWG I-D, section 3.5] Packet Reordering [RFC 4737, section 3.3] • Introduction updated to better explain sequence of events Failover Event -> Failure Detection -> Failover -> Restoration (Failover Recovery) -> Reversion (optional). • Cleaned-up some definitions based upon reviewers comments 3.3.4 Restoration 3.3.5 Reversion 3.4.4 Merge Node 3.4.5 Point of Local Repair • Successfully PASS the NITs Checker
Methodology Changes from Rev 01 to 02 • Applied the new method to calculate failover - Timestamp Based Method (TBM) • All other comments are previously incorporated.
Acknowledgements • Thanks to BMWG-ers for support shown in the work item • The authors wish to thank the following for their invaluable input to the merged document • Curtis Villamizar • Jean Philippe Vasseur • Karu Ratnam • Arun Gandhi • Thanks to Agilent Technologies for their comments on this work item and for conforming to the methodology we proposed
Next Steps • Incorporate any new comments from meeting and mailing list • Ready for WGLC?
New Draft standing to become the WG item – draft - papneja - mpls - protection - meth - merge - 00 . txt June 2006 Backup SlideHistory/Background And Progress So Far Terminology For Protection Benchmarking Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection draft - kimura - protection - term - 00 . txt - October 2002 Mechanisms draft - kimura - protection - term - 01 . txt - April 2003 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 00 June 2003 Parallel Efforts draft - kimura - protection - term - 02 . txt – October 2003 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 01 Oct . 2003 draft - kimura - protection - term - 02 . txt – April 2005 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 02 Feb 2004 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 03 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 04 Created single work item July 2005 with common Terminology Common Terminology created With Effort led by Kimura - san Received numerous comments for additional test cases and benchmarking metrics Terminology For Protection e l b a Benchmarking – July 2005 c i l p p A draft - poretsky - protection - term - 00 . txt Created draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 05 Feb 2006 December 2005 More Protection Scenarios Proposed Under Final WG Item draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt Work Group Item 1. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.txt 2. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.txt Mailing List Decision to Merge The two Efforts – Followed by action item from Dallas IETF WG Item Final Decision 1 . Significant Interest in the effort 2 . Interest has reached peak 3 . Formal Proposal Submitted to the Mailing list 4 . Significant support received / 5 . New Merged Draft Submitted