Subject: [bmwg] Benchmarking MPLS Forwarding

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:51:18 -0500

Folks,

Curtis suggested I take a look at this (I did),
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-villamizar-mpls-forwarding-00#page-11
and I think others should take a look, too.

Food for thought (at least) as we consider new work.

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

---

From: "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:18:53 +0000

Al,

I took a look at this draft and in my opinion, most (if not all) of the
clarifications in section 1.1 would need to be benchmarked appropriately.
Many of these scenarios described are beyond the scope of previous work
(MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements/RFC5695) which
focused on label stack depth of 1.

The entire section 4 (Forwarding Compliance and Performance Testing) could
potentially be a new work item.

Here are some comments on draft-villamizar-mpls-forwarding-00.

If T#1 in section 4 fails, the max supported depth should be determined
for a given implementation.

Subcase T#3b needs to be modified. While benchmarking, a device is either
a tester/tool or a DUT. Specifically, the procedure described should apply
to any DUT and not a router that has certain capability.

T#5 is a generic functional validation that could apply to most cases (eg
T#1). Same comment applies to other cases, which validates functionality
or tests conformance (eg T#10). These tests could be part of the
validation procedure but may not represent a benchmark.

A few more test scenarios could be created to measure the max label stack
size with PW control word, flow label and Entropy label. This is different
from T#1 where the focus is to measure in general, the maximum stack size
supported by DUT, instead of characterizing the max supported in different
scenarios. 

-Jay

On 11/8/12 9:51 AM, "Al Morton" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>bmwg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:16:57 -0500

Thanks for taking some time to consider this, Jay.

Are any others interested in working this topic?

If so, the next step would be to organize toward
a draft or presentation next year with perhaps
some calls or interactions beginning now.

the beat goes on,
Al
bmwg chair