Subject: [bmwg] Proposal on IPv6 Benchmarking

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:20:15 -0400

BMWG,

The proponents of IPv6 Benchmarking have prepared a description of
their work effort in the form of a proposal, below.

BMWG discussed this work at the Montreal IETF-66 session,
where there was strong support and involved membership
(see meeting minutes). The related I-D can be found here:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-popoviciu-bmwg-ipv6benchmarking-01.txt

Please weigh-in on whether this topic/draft should become part
of BMWG's chartered work, by

                    September 25, 2006

And, if you support the work, please say:

+  HOW you intend to support the development in BMWG,
    (by reviewing draft X by MM/DD/YY, for example),  or

+  WHY this work will be beneficial to BMWG's user community, or

+  Modifications that would make the proposal more useful
    (which we will discuss on the list), and

+  (anything else that's constructive)

And remember, we'd like to hear your opinion on the list,
even if you spoke in favor of this proposal at the meeting.

Thanks in advance for your efforts and commitment to BMWG!

Al
bmwg co-chair

=========================================================================

Proposal for IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology

Summary:

This is a proposal for a BMWG work item that defines the IPv6 benchmarking 
requirements. It addresses the need for guidelines on evaluating the 
performance of network elements handling IPv6 traffic by itself or in 
conjunction with IPv4 traffic. While for the most part, the IPv4 
benchmarking methodology applies to IPv6 as well, the two protocols are 
significantly different in certain aspects. These differences are 
operationally important and for this reason, it is critical to understand 
if network elements claiming support for IPv6 were designed and optimized 
for its support. This proposed document follows the structure of RFC2544 
and complements it with recommendations that take into consideration the 
IPv6 protocol specifics.

Goal:

The objective of this work item is to prepare an Informational RFC that 
complements RFC2544 with a set of benchmarks that address IPv6 specific 
characteristics such as: addressing, header format changes, extension 
header processing rules, etc. Based on the workgroup recommendations thus 
far, this document will leverage existing terminology references and 
structurally follows RFC2544.

Scope:

The focus of this effort is to benchmark aspects specific to the IPv6 
protocol. It is complementary to, and not a replacement for RFC2544. This 
document covers in detail the benchmark scenarios to be considered for IPv6 
and its co-existence with IPv4.

For all other benchmarks it shares with IPv4, it simply refers to RFC2544. 
The list of media types mentioned in RFC2544 is updated with the addition 
of Packet over SONET interfaces. This work effort will define the size of 
the IPv6 Address space that should be dedicated to benchmarking, and make 
that recommendation to IANA.

Motivation:

The accelerating interest in IPv6 and its adoption has dramatically 
increased the need for IPv6 operational guidelines. Large scale IPv6 
deployments are currently on-going or being planned. Since these 
deployments are most often taking place over existing IPv4 infrastructure, 
the main challenges faced by designers and implementors of services are: 
“How well do my network elements support IPv6” and “What is the impact on 
IPv4 of deploying IPv6?” Even those network operators that have a longer 
term plan for deploying IPv6 are very mindful to use the regular equipment 
upgrade process to make their infrastructure capable of supporting IPv6.

The process of acquiring and planning for IPv6 capable equipment needs to 
be matched with knowledge and standardized methods for evaluating its IPv6 
performance. Using only the existing IPv4 benchmarking recommendations can 
hide the fact that a particular network element, while minimally supporting 
IPv6, was not designed for high performance and complete IPv6 support. This 
work builds on the RFC2544 recommendations by adding IPv6 specific 
benchmarks. It will enable the engineering community to consistently 
perform evaluations of networking equipment's IPv6 capabilities.

Schedule:

"IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology"

1) Consideration of list feedback on the proposal and current draft - on-going

2) draft-popoviciu-bmwg-ipv6benchmarking-02.txt ready for WG list review – 9/25

3) Present finalized version of the draft at IETF 67 and proceed with the 
Working Group Last Call process

The document has been reviewed and discussed within BMWG and v6ops. With 
the implementation and approval of the latest recommendations, we believe 
this document will be ready for last call towards the end of this year.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:28:28 -0400

Al and BMWG,

I would be able to help with refining the IPv6 benchmarking document via 
ongoing document review and contributing with additional content, if 
merited.

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.

Regards,

Bill Cerveny

Al Morton wrote:
> This is a proposal for a BMWG work item that defines the IPv6 
> benchmarking requirements. It addresses the need for guidelines on 
> evaluating the performance of network elements handling IPv6 traffic 
> by itself or in conjunction with IPv4 traffic. While for the most 
> part, the IPv4 benchmarking methodology applies to IPv6 as well, the 
> two protocols are significantly different in certain aspects. These 
> differences are operationally important and for this reason, it is 
> critical to understand if network elements claiming support for IPv6 
> were designed and optimized for its support. This proposed document 
> follows the structure of RFC2544 and complements it with 
> recommendations that take into consideration the IPv6 protocol specifics.
>
> Goal:
>
> The objective of this work item is to prepare an Informational RFC 
> that complements RFC2544 with a set of benchmarks that address IPv6 
> specific characteristics such as: addressing, header format changes, 
> extension header processing rules, etc. Based on the workgroup 
> recommendations thus far, this document will leverage existing 
> terminology references and structurally follows RFC2544.
>
> Scope:
>
> protocol. It is complementary to, and not a replacement for RFC2544. 
> This document covers in detail the benchmark scenarios to be 
> considered for IPv6 and its co-existence with IPv4.
>
> For all other benchmarks it shares with IPv4, it simply refers to 
> RFC2544. The list of media types mentioned in RFC2544 is updated with 
> the addition of Packet over SONET interfaces. This work effort will 
> define the size of the IPv6 Address space that should be dedicated to 
> benchmarking, and make that recommendation to IANA.
>
> Motivation:
>
> deployments are most often taking place over existing IPv4 
> infrastructure, the main challenges faced by designers and 
> implementors of services are: “How well do my network elements support 
> IPv6” and “What is the impact on IPv4 of deploying IPv6?” Even those 
> network operators that have a longer term plan for deploying IPv6 are 
> very mindful to use the regular equipment upgrade process to make 
> their infrastructure capable of supporting IPv6.
>
>
> The process of acquiring and planning for IPv6 capable equipment needs 
> to be matched with knowledge and standardized methods for evaluating 
> its IPv6 performance. Using only the existing IPv4 benchmarking 
> recommendations can hide the fact that a particular network element, 
> while minimally supporting IPv6, was not designed for high performance 
> and complete IPv6 support. This work builds on the RFC2544 
> recommendations by adding IPv6 specific benchmarks. It will enable the 
> engineering community to consistently perform evaluations of 
> networking equipment's IPv6 capabilities.
>
>
> Schedule:
>
> 3) Present finalized version of the draft at IETF 67 and proceed with 
> the Working Group Last Call process
>
>
> The document has been reviewed and discussed within BMWG and v6ops. 
> With the implementation and approval of the latest recommendations, we 
> believe this document will be ready for last call towards the end of 
> this year.
>
>