Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: May 2008
Intended Status: Informational
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Brent Imhoff
Juniper Networks
November 2007
Terminology for Benchmarking
Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
ABSTRACT
This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The terminology is to
be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally
observable (black box) data plane measurements. The terminology
can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................2
2. Existing definitions .........................................3
3. Term definitions..............................................4
3.1 Convergence Event.........................................4
3.2 Route Convergence.........................................4
3.3 Network Convergence.......................................5
3.4 Full Convergence..........................................5
3.5 Packet Loss...............................................6
3.6 Convergence Packet Loss...................................6
3.7 Convergence Event Instant.................................7
3.8 Convergence Recovery Instant..............................7
3.9 First Prefix Convergence Instant..........................8
3.10 Convergence Event Transition.............................8
3.11 Convergence Recovery Transition..........................9
3.12 Rate-Derived Convergence Time............................9
3.13 Loss-Derived Convergence Time............................10
3.14 Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time....................11
3.15 First Prefix Convergence Time............................12
3.16 Reversion Convergence Time...............................12
3.17 Packet Sampling Interval.................................13
3.18 Local Interface..........................................13
3.19 Neighbor Interface.......................................14
3.20 Remote Interface.........................................14
3.21 Preferred Egress Interface...............................15
3.22 Next-Best Egress Interface...............................15
3.23 Stale Forwarding.........................................15
3.24 Nested Convergence Events................................16
4. IANA Considerations...........................................16
5. Security Considerations.......................................16
6. Acknowledgements..............................................16
7. References....................................................17
8. Author's Address..............................................18
1. Introduction
This draft describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence. The motivation and
applicability for this benchmarking is provided in [Po07a]. The
methodology to be used for this benchmarking is described in [Po07m].
The methodology and terminology to be used for benchmarking Route
Convergence can be applied to any link-state IGP such as ISIS [Ca90]
and OSPF [Mo98]. The data plane is measured to obtain black-box
(externally observable) convergence benchmarking metrics. The
purpose of this document is to introduce new terms required to
complete execution of the IGP Route Convergence Methodology [Po07m].
These terms apply to IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and IGPs.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
An example of Route Convergence as observed and measured from the
data plane is shown in Figure 1. The graph in Figure 1 shows
Forwarding Rate versus Time. Time 0 on the X-axis is on the far
right of the graph. The Offered Load to the ingress interface of
the DUT SHOULD equal the measured maximum Throughput [Ba99][Ma98]
of the DUT and the Forwarding Rate [Ma98] is measured at the egress
interfaces of the DUT. The components of the graph and the metrics
are defined in the Term Definitions section.
Convergence Convergence
Recovery Event
Instant Instant Time = 0sec
Forwarding Rate = ^ ^ ^ Offered Load =
Offered Load --> ------\ Packet /-------- <---Max Throughput
\ Loss /<----Convergence
Convergence------->\ / Event Transition
Recovery Transition \ /
\_____/<------Maximum Packet Loss
X-axis = Time
Y-axis = Forwarding Rate
Figure 1. Convergence Graph
2. Existing definitions
This document uses existing terminology defined in other BMWG
work. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Latency [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.8]
Frame Loss Rate [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.6]
Throughput [Ref.[Ba91], section 3.17]
Device Under Test (DUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.1]
System Under Test (SUT) [Ref.[Ma98], section 3.1.2]
Out-of-order Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.2]
Duplicate Packet [Ref.[Po06], section 3.3.3]
Packet Reordering [Ref.[Mo06], section 3.3]
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3. Term Definitions
3.1 Convergence Event
Definition:
The occurrence of a planned or unplanned action in the network
that results in a change in the egress interface of the Device
Under Test (DUT) for routed packets.
Discussion:
Convergence Events include link loss, routing protocol session
loss, router failure, configuration change, and better next-hop
learned via a routing protocol.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Event Instant
3.2 Route Convergence
Definition:
Route Convergence is the action to update all components of the
router with the most recent route change(s) including the
Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base
(FIB), along with software and hardware tables, such that
forwarding is successful for one or more destinations.
Discussion:
Route Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event.
Route Convergence can be observed externally by the rerouting
of data traffic to the Next-best Egress Interface. Also,
Route Convergence may or may not be sustained over time.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Network Convergence
Full Convergence
Convergence Event
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.3 Network Convergence
Definition:
The completion of updating of all routing tables, including
distributed FIBs, in all routers throughout the network.
Discussion:
Network Convergence requires completion of all Route
Convergenceoperations for all routers in the network following
a Convergence Event. Network Convergence can be observed by
recovery of System Under Test (SUT) Throughput to equal the
offered load, with no Stale Forwarding, and no Blenders
[Ca01][Ci03].
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Route Convergence
Stale Forwarding
3.4 Full Convergence
Definition:
Route Convergence for an entire FIB in which complete recovery
from the Convergence Event is indicated by the DUT Throughput
equal to the offered load.
Discussion:
When benchmarking convergence, it is useful to measure
the time to converge an entire FIB. For example,
a Convergence Event can be produced for an OSPF table of
5000 routes so that the time to converge routes 1 through
5000 is measured. Full Convergence is externally observable
from the data plane when the Throughput of the data
plane traffic on the Next-Best Egress Interface equals the
offered load.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Network Convergence
Route Convergence
Convergence Event
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.5 Packet Loss
Definition:
The number of packets that should have been forwarded
by a DUT under a constant offered load that were
not forwarded due to lack of resources.
Discussion:
Packet Loss is a modified version of the term "Frame Loss Rate"
as defined in [Ba91]. The term "Frame Loss" is intended for
Ethernet Frames while "Packet Loss" is intended for IP packets.
Packet Loss can be measured as a reduction in forwarded traffic
from the Throughput [Ba91] of the DUT.
Measurement units:
Number of offered packets that are not forwarded.
Issues: None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
3.6 Convergence Packet Loss
Definition:
The number of packets lost due to a Convergence Event
until Full Convergence occurs.
Discussion:
Convergence Packet Loss includes packets that were lost and
packets that were delayed due to buffering. The Convergence
Packet Loss observed in a Packet Sampling Interval may or may
not be equal to the number of packets in the offered load
during the interval following a Convergence Event (see Figure
1).
Measurement Units:
number of packets
Issues: None
See Also:
Packet Loss
Route Convergence
Convergence Event
Packet Sampling Interval
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.7 Convergence Event Instant
Definition:
The time instant that a Convergence Event becomes observable in
the data plane.
Discussion:
Convergence Event Instant is observable from the data
plane as the precise time that the device under test begins
to exhibit packet loss.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu,
where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Event
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Recovery Instant
3.8 Convergence Recovery Instant
Definition:
The time instant that Full Convergence is measured
and then maintained for an interval of duration equal to
the Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time
Discussion:
Convergence Recovery Instant is measurable from the data
plane as the precise time that the device under test
achieves Full Convergence.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu,
where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues:
None
See Also:
Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Event Instant
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.9 First Prefix Convergence Instant
Definition:
The time instant for convergence of a first route entry
following a Convergence Event, as observed by receipt of
the first packet from the Next-Best Egress Interface.
Discussion:
The First Prefix Convergence Instant is an indication that the
process to achieve Full Convergence has begun. Any route may be
the first to converge for First Convergence. Measurement on the
data-plane enables First Convergence to be observed without any
white-box information from the DUT.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Route Convergence
Full Convergence
Stale Forwarding
3.10 Convergence Event Transition
Definition:
A time interval observed following a Convergence Event in which
Throughput gradually reduces to zero.
Discussion:
The Convergence Event Transition is best observed for Full
Convergence. The egress packet rate observed during a
Convergence Event Transition may not decrease linearly. Both
the offered load and the Packet Sampling Interval influence the
observations of the Convergence Event Transition. For example,
even if the Convergence Event were to cause the Throughput
[Ba91] to drop to zero there would be some number of packets
observed, unless the Packet Sampling Interval is exactly
aligned with the Convergence Event. This is further discussed
with the term "Packet Sampling Interval".
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Event
Full Convergence
Packet Sampling Interval
3.11 Convergence Recovery Transition
Definition:
The characteristic of the DUT in which Throughput gradually
increases to equal the offered load.
Discussion:
The Convergence Recovery Transition is best observed for
Full Convergence. The egress packet rate observed during
a Convergence Recovery Transition may not increase linearly.
Both the offered load and the Packet Sampling Interval
influence the observations of the Convergence Recovery
Transition. This is further discussed with the term
"Packet Sampling Interval".
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Full Convergence
Packet Sampling Interval
3.12 Rate-Derived Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss to persist upon
occurrence of a Convergence Event until measurement of Full
Convergence.
Rate-Derived Convergence Time can be measured as the time
difference from the Convergence Event Instant to the
Convergence Recovery Instant, as shown with Equation 1.
(Equation 1)
Rate-Derived Convergence Time =
Convergence Recovery Instant - Convergence Event Instant.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Discussion:
Rate-Derived Convergence Time should be measured at the maximum
Throughput of the DUT. At least one packet per route in the FIB
for all routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT per second.
Failure to achieve Full Convergence results in a Rate-Derived
Convergence Time benchmark of infinity.
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Recovery Instant
Convergence Event Instant
Full Convergence
3.13 Loss-Derived Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time it takes for Full Convergence to be
achieved as calculated from the amount of Convergence
Packet Loss. Loss-Derived Convergence Time can be
calculated from Convergence Packet Loss that occurs due
to a Convergence Event and Route Convergence as shown
with Equation 2.
Equation 2 -
Loss-Derived Convergence Time =
Convergence Packets Loss / Offered Load
NOTE: Units for this measurement are
packets / packets/second = seconds
Discussion:
Loss-Derived Convergence Time gives a better than
actual result when converging many routes simultaneously.
Rate-Derived Convergence Time takes the Convergence Recovery
Transition into account, but Loss-Derived Convergence Time
ignores the Route Convergence Recovery Transition because
it is obtained from the measured Convergence Packet Loss.
Ideally, the Convergence Event Transition and Convergence
Recovery Transition are instantaneous so that the
Rate-Derived Convergence Time = Loss-Derived Convergence Time.
However, router implementations are less than ideal.
For these reasons the preferred reporting benchmark for IGP
Route Convergence is the Rate-Derived Convergence Time.
Guidelines for reporting Loss-Derived Convergence Time are
provided in [Po07m].
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Event
Convergence Packet Loss
Rate-Derived Convergence Time
Convergence Event Transition
Convergence Recovery Transition
3.14 Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time for which Full Convergence is maintained
without additional packet loss.
Discussion:
The purpose of the Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time is to
produce Convergence benchmarks protected against fluctuation
in Throughput after Full Convergence is observed. The
Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time to be used is calculated
as shown in Equation 3.
Equation 3 -
Sustained Forwarding Convergence Time =
C*(Convergence Packet Loss/Offered Load)
where,
a. units are packets/pps = sec and
b. C is a constant. The RECOMMENDED value for C is 5 as
selected from working group consensus. This is similar
to RFC 2544 [Ba99] which recommends waiting 2 seconds for
residual frames to arrive and 5 seconds for DUT
restabilization.
c. at least one packet per route in the FIB for all
routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT per second.
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues: None
See Also:
Full Convergence
Convergence Recovery Instant
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.15 First Prefix Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time for Convergence Packet Loss until the
convergence of a first route entry on the Next-Best Egress
Interface, as indicated by the First Prefix Convergence
Instant.
First Prefix Convergence Time can be measured as the time
difference from the Convergence Event Instant and the First
Prefix Convergence Instant, as shown with Equation 4.
(Equation 4)
First Prefix Convergence Time =
First Prefix Convergence Instant -
Convergence Event Instant.
Discussion:
First Prefix Convergence Time should be measured at the maximum
Throughput of the DUT. At least one packet per route in the FIB
for all routes in the FIB MUST be offered to the DUT per second.
Failure to achieve the First Prefix Convergence Instant results
in a First Prefix Convergence Time benchmark of infinity.
Measurement Units:
hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu,
where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds.
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
First Prefix Convergence Instant
3.16 Reversion Convergence Time
Definition:
The amount of time for the DUT to forward traffic from the
Preferred Egress Interface, instead of the Next-Best Egress
Interface, upon recovery from a Convergence Event.
Discussion:
Reversion Convergence Time is the amount of time for routes
to converge to the original outbound port. This is achieved
by recovering from the Convergence Event, such as restoring
the failed link. Reversion Convergence Time is measured
using the Rate-Derived Convergence Time calculation technique,
as provided in Equation 1. It is possible to have the
Reversion Convergence Time differ from the Rate-Derived
Convergence Time.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Preferred Egress Interface
Convergence Event
Rate-Derived Convergence Time
3.17 Packet Sampling Interval
Definition:
The interval at which the tester (test equipment) polls to make
measurements for arriving packet flows.
Discussion:
Metrics measured at the Packet Sampling Interval MUST include
Forwarding Rate and Convergence Packet Loss.
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
Packet Sampling Interval can influence the Convergence Graph.
This is particularly true when implementations achieve Full
Convergence in less than 1 second. The Convergence Event
Transition and Convergence Recovery Transition can become
exaggerated when the Packet Sampling Interval is too long.
This will produce a larger than actual Rate-Derived
Convergence Time. The recommended value for configuration
of the Packet Sampling Interval is provided in [Po07m].
See Also:
Convergence Packet Loss
Convergence Event Transition
Convergence Recovery Transition
3.18 Local Interface
Definition:
An interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of the Local Interface indicates that the failure
occured directly on the DUT.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Neighbor Interface
Remote Interface
3.19 Neighbor Interface
Definition:
The interface on the neighbor router or tester that is
directly linked to the DUT's Local Interface.
Discussion:
None
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Local Interface
Remote Interface
3.20 Remote Interface
Definition:
An interface on a neighboring router that is not directly
connected to any interface on the DUT.
Discussion:
A failure of a Remote Interface indicates that the failure
occurred on an interface that is not directly connected
to the DUT.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Local Interface
Neighbor Interface
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
3.21 Preferred Egress Interface
Definition:
The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the
preferred next-hop.
Discussion:
The Preferred Egress Interface is the egress interface prior
to a Convergence Event.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Next-Best Egress Interface
3.22 Next-Best Egress Interface
Definition:
The outbound interface from the DUT for traffic routed to the
second-best next-hop. It is the same media type and link speed
as the Preferred Egress Interface
Discussion:
The Next-Best Egress Interface becomes the egress interface
after a Convergence Event.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Preferred Egress Interface
3.23 Stale Forwarding
Definition:
Forwarding of traffic to route entries that no longer exist
or to route entries with next-hops that are no longer preferred.
Discussion:
Stale Forwarding can be caused by a Convergence Event and is
also known as a "black-hole" or microloop since it may produce
packet loss. Stale Forwarding exists until Network Convergence
is achieved.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Network Convergence
3.24 Nested Convergence Events
Definition:
The occurrence of a Convergence Event while the route
table is converging from a prior Convergence Event.
Discussion:
The Convergence Events for a Nested Convergence Event
MUST occur with different neighbors. A common
observation from a Nested Convergence Event will be
the withdrawal of routes from one neighbor while the
routes of another neighbor are being installed.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Convergence Event
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
5. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to production
networks.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Sue Hares, Al Morton, Kevin Dubray, Ron Bonica, David Ward,
and the BMWG for their contributions to this work.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[Ba91] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC1242, July 1991.
[Ba99] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices",
RFC 2544, March 1999.
[Br97] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997
[Ca90] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[Mo98] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, IETF, April 1998.
[Mo06] Morton, A., et al, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006.
[Po06] Poretsky, S., et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking
Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689,
November 2006.
[Po07a] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Applicability for Link-State
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence",
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-14, work in progress,
November 2007.
[Po07m] Poretsky, S. and Imhoff, B., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence",
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-14, work in progress,
November 2007.
7.2 Informative References
[Ca01] S. Casner, C. Alaettinoglu, and C. Kuan, "A Fine-Grained View
of High Performance Networking", NANOG 22, June 2001.
[Ci03] L. Ciavattone, A. Morton, and G. Ramachandran, "Standardized
Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone", IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp90-97, May 2003.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
3 Federal Street
Billerica, MA 01821
USA
Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Brent Imhoff
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Phone: + 1 314 378 2571
EMail: bimhoff@planetspork.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for November 2007
IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Poretsky, Imhoff [Page 19]