I read your draft draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-04.txt and realized that we could expand on the FRR benchmarking of the failover times with all possible combination of topologies and additional test cases.
So Jay and I came up with a write-up that could be merged to the existing work of yours. Please take a look at this and let us know what you and the co-authors of draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-04.txt think ?
I'm sending my draft fragmented into 2 text files and attached in 2 different emails to stay within the limit of 25K mail size.
Thanks,
Samir
Samir Vapiwala
Cisco Systems
Jay Karthik
Cisco Systems
October 2005
Methodology for benchmarking fast failover time with local protection
<draft-vapiwala-frr-failover-measurement-methodology-00.txt>
Abstract:
This draft provides the methodology for benchmarking failover time of local
protection (aka Fast reroute). The failover to a backup tunnel could happen
at the headend of the primary tunnel or a midpoint and the backup could offer
link or node protection and it becomes vital to benchmark the failover
time for all the cases and combinations. The failover time could also greatly
differ based on the design and implementation by factors like the number of
prefixes carried by the tunnel, the number of primary tunnels affected by
the event that caused the failover, number of primary tunnels that the backup
protects etc. All the required benchmarking criteria and benchmarking topology
required for measuring failover time of local protection is described here.
1. Introduction:
The failover could occur at the headend or the midpoint of a primary tunnel.
The need to benchmark a device under test for the failover measurements
is certainly something the service providers like. The following sections
describe all the different topologies and scenarios that should be used to
benchmark the failover time. The triggers for the failovers are discussed as well.
In order to benchmark failover time, data traffic is used as mentioned in [SCOTT-IGP]
since traffic loss is measured in a black-box test and is a widely accepted
way to measure convergence.
Important point to be noted when benchmarking failover time is that
depending on whether PHP is happening (whether or not implicit null is advertised
by the tail-end), and on the number of hops of primary and backup tunnel, we could
have different situations where the packets switched over to the backup tunnel
may have one, more or 0 labels.
Yet another test case to be benchmarked is to configure layer 3 VPN over FRR,
or Layer 3 VPN over Targeted LDP peers over FRR to have a label stack depth
more than 2.
All the benchmarking cases mentioned in this document could apply to facility
backup as well as detour mode.
This document suggests the following testcases to completely benchmark the
failover time placing the DUT as the head-end as well as a mid-point when
it is a PLR (point of local repair) The testcases benchmarked are dependent upon the target topology
Failover Triggers:
- Shutdown interface on PLR side (with or without RSVP Hello)
- Shutdown interface on remote side (Mostly used) (with or without RSVP Hello)
- Fiber Pull on PLR side (with or without RSVP Hello)
- Fiber Pull on remote side (Mostly used) (with or without RSVP Hello)
- OIR on PLR side (with or without RSVP Hello)
- OIR on remote side (with or without RSVP Hello)
- Reload router in Node protection case.(with or without RSVP Hello)
Traffic Generation:
It is recommended that there be 3 streams of traffic generated by the tester.
The three traffic streams should be setup to send traffic to First, Mid and Last
prefixes from fast reroute database. It should be noted that traffic stream should
not be sent in round robin fashion to all the prefixes. It is also recommended that
the total traffic is between 20 to 50 % of the link bandwidth.
Topologies to be used for benchmarking the failover time:
The following are all the required network topology required to benchmark the
failover time for local protection.
TG is the traffic generator and TA is the traffic analyzer
2 Test Topologies
2.1
-------- P --------
TG-|Ingress |----| Egress |-TA
| DUT |----| Node |
-------- B --------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 0 0
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 1 1
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 2 2
Fig 1 Link Protection with 1 hop primary and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.2
-------- --------
TG-|Ingress | P |Egress |-TA
| DUT |----| Node |
-------- --------
|B |
| -------- |
---|Backup |-
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 0 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 1 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 2 3
Fig 2 Link Protection with 1 hop primary and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.3
-------- P -------- P --------
TG-|Ingress |----| Midpt |------| Egress |-TA
| DUT |----| Node | | Node |
-------- B -------- --------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Fig 3 Link Protection with 2+ hop primary and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.4
-------- P -------- P --------
TG-|Ingress |----|Midpt |------| Egress |-TA
| DUT | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- --------
B| |
| -------- |
---|Backup |-
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 4
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 4
Fig 4 Link Protection with 2+ hop primary and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.5
-------- P -------- P --------
|Ingress |----|Midpt |------| Egress |
| DUT | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- --------
B| |
-----------------------------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 0
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 2
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 1
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 2
Fig 5 Node Protection with 2 hop primary and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.6
-------- -------- --------
|Ingress | P |MidPoint| P | Egress |
| DUT |----| Node |----| Node |
-------- -------- --------
| |
B | -------- |
---------|Backup |---------
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Fig 6 Node Protection with 2 hop primary and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.7
-------- P -------- P -------- P --------
|Ingress |----|Midpt |------| Merge |------| Egress |
| DUT | | Node | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- -------- --------
B | |
-----------------------------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 1
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 3
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 2
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 3
Fig 7 Node Protection with 3 or more hops primary and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.8
-------- -------- -------- --------
|Ingress | P |MidPoint| P | Merge | P | Egress |
| DUT |----| Node |----| Node |------| Node |
-------- -------- -------- --------
B | |
| -------- |
---------|Backup |---------
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
IGP 1 2
Layer3 VPN (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer3 VPN (PE-P) 3 4
Layer2 VC (PE-PE) 2 3
Layer2 VC (PE-P) 3 4
Fig 8 Node Protection with 3 or more hops primary and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
The following are the network topologies required to benchmark failover time
when DUT is a midpoint PLR.
2.9
------- -------- P --------
|Ingress|--| Mid-pt |----| Egress |
| | | DUT |----| Node |
------- -------- B --------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 0 0
Fig 9 Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.10
------- -------- --------
|Ingress| | Mid-pt | P |Egress |
| |----| DUT |----| Node |
------- -------- --------
|B |
| -------- |
---|Backup |-
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 0 1
Fig 10 Link Protection with 1 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.11
-------- -------- P -------- P --------
|Ingress |----| Mid-pt |----| Midpt |------| Egress |
| | | DUT |----| Node | | Node |
-------- -------- B -------- --------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 1
Fig 11 Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.12
-------- -------- P -------- P --------
|Ingress |----| Mid-pt |----|Midpt |------| Egress |
| | | DUT | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- -------- --------
B| |
| -------- |
---|Backup |-
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 2
Fig 12 Link Protection with 2+ hop (from PLR) primary and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.13
-------- -------- P -------- P --------
|Ingress |----| Mid-pt |----|Midpt |------| Egress |
| | | DUT | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- -------- --------
B| |
-----------------------------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 0
Fig 13 Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.14
-------- -------- -------- --------
|Ingress | | Mid-pt | P |MidPoint| P | Egress |
| |----| DUT |----| Node |----| Node |
-------- -------- -------- --------
| |
B | -------- |
---------|Backup |---------
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 1
Fig 14 Node Protection with 2 hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE tunnels
2.15
-------- -------- P -------- P -------- P --------
| Ingress|----| Mid-pt |----|Midpt |------| Merge |------| Egress |
| | | DUT | | Node | | Node | | Node |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
B | |
-----------------------------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 1
Fig 15 Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 1 hop backup TE tunnels
2.16
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
|Ingress | | Mid-pt | P |MidPoint| P | Merge | P | Egress |
| |---- | DUT |----| Node |----| Node |------| Node |
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------
B | |
| -------- |
---------|Backup |-------
|Midpoint|
--------
Traffic No of Labels No of labels
before failure after failure
Any 1 2
Fig 16 Node Protection with 3+ hop primary (from PLR) and 2 hop backup TE tunnels_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg