idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 29, 2017) is 2586 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2647' is defined on line 1036, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3511 (Obsoleted by RFC 9411) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Benchmarking Working Group M. Georgescu 2 Internet Draft L. Pislaru 3 Intended status: Informational RCS&RDS 4 Expires: September 2017 G. Lencse 5 Szechenyi Istvan University 6 March 29, 2017 8 Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies 9 draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-05.txt 11 Abstract 13 There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of 14 network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the 15 IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This 16 document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the 17 performance of IPv6 transition technologies. More specifically, 18 this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ 19 encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be 20 very well tested using the recommendations of RFC2544 and RFC5180. 21 The methodology also includes a tentative metric for benchmarking 22 load scalability. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 31 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 32 Drafts. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 35 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 36 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 37 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 40 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 42 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 43 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2016. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 57 respect to this document. 59 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 60 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 61 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 62 publication of this document. Please review these documents 63 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 64 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 65 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 66 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 67 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 69 Table of Contents 71 1. Introduction...................................................3 72 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4 73 2. Conventions used in this document..............................6 74 3. Terminology....................................................6 75 4. Test Setup.....................................................6 76 4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................7 77 4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..7 78 5. Test Traffic...................................................8 79 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................8 80 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................9 81 5.2. Protocol Addresses........................................9 82 5.3. Traffic Setup.............................................9 83 6. Modifiers.....................................................10 84 7. Benchmarking Tests............................................10 85 7.1. Throughput...............................................11 86 Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified........................11 87 7.2. Latency..................................................11 88 7.3. Packet Delay Variation...................................12 89 7.3.1. PDV.................................................12 90 7.3.2. IPDV................................................13 91 7.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................14 92 7.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................14 93 7.6. System Recovery..........................................14 94 7.7. Reset....................................................14 96 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 97 Technologies.....................................................14 98 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................14 99 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................14 100 9. DNS Resolution Performance....................................14 101 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................15 102 9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................16 103 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester.........................17 104 10. Overload Scalability.........................................18 105 10.1. Test Setup..............................................18 106 10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies.........18 107 10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition 108 Technologies...............................................19 109 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation....................20 110 10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load 111 ...........................................................20 112 10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load 113 ...........................................................20 114 11. NAT44 and NAT66..............................................21 115 12. Summarizing function and variation...........................21 116 13. Security Considerations......................................22 117 14. IANA Considerations..........................................22 118 15. References...................................................22 119 15.1. Normative References....................................22 120 15.2. Informative References..................................23 121 16. Acknowledgements.............................................26 122 Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................27 124 1. Introduction 126 The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors 127 and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and 128 IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544] 129 is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains 130 complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP 131 version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition 132 technologies. 134 IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes 135 cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this 136 issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and 137 implemented. 139 This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6 140 transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights 141 about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful 142 feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going 143 through the IPv6 transition process. 145 The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when 146 operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a 147 system's ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows 148 than the maximum number of flows which the DUT can operate normally. 149 The approach taken here is to quantify the overload scalability by 150 measuring the performance created by an excessive number of network 151 flows, and comparing performance to the non-overloaded case. 153 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies 155 Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known 156 as dual stack) and encapsulation are presented in [RFC4213]. 157 IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the 158 transition technologies employ at least one variation of these 159 mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333]) 160 are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of 161 the transition technologies can prove useful. 163 Tentatively, we can consider a production network transitioning to 164 IPv6 as being constructed using the following IP domains: 166 o Domain A: IPvX specific domain 168 o Core domain: which may be IPvY specific or dual-stack(IPvX and 169 IPvY) 171 o Domain B: IPvX specific domain 173 Note: X,Y are part of the set {4,6}, and X NOT.EQUAL Y. 175 According to the technology used for the core domain traversal the 176 transition technologies can be categorized as follows: 178 1. Dual-stack: the core domain devices implement both IP protocols. 180 2. Single Translation: In this case, the production network is 181 assumed to have only two domains, Domain A and the Core domain. 182 The core domain is assumed to be IPvY specific. IPvX packets are 183 translated to IPvY at the edge between Domain A and the Core 184 domain. 186 3. Double translation: The production network is assumed to have all 187 three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core 188 domain is IPvY specific. A translation mechanism is employed for 189 the traversal of the core network. The IPvX packets are 190 translated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the 191 Core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are translated back 192 to IPvX at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B. 194 4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all 195 three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core 196 domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to 197 traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to 198 IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain. 199 Subsequently, the IPvY packets are de-encapsulated at the edge 200 between the Core domain and Domain B. 202 The performance of Dual-stack transition technologies can be fully 203 evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by 204 [RFC2544] and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the 205 other 3 categories: Single translation, Encapsulation and Double 206 translation transition technologies. 208 Another important aspect by which the IPv6 transition technologies 209 can be categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping 210 algorithms. The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms 211 (e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between 212 IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port 213 number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of 214 reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful 215 mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition 216 technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed 217 can be an important performance indicator for these technologies. 218 Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional 219 benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED. 221 Table 1 contains the generic categories as well as associations with 222 some of the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF. 224 Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories 225 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 226 | | Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology | 227 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 228 | 1 | Dual-stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] | 229 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 230 | 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219] | 231 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 232 | 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] | 233 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 234 | 4 | Encapsulation | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597] | 235 | | | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596] | 236 | | | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE | 237 | | | 6VPE [RFC4659] | 238 +---+--------------------+------------------------------------+ 240 2. Conventions used in this document 242 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 243 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 244 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 246 In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation 247 only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be 248 interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. 250 Although these terms are usually associated with protocol 251 requirements, in this document the terms are requirements for users 252 and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim 253 conformance with this specification. 255 3. Terminology 257 A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs. 258 Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and 259 reporting formats. 261 Throughput (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] 263 Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] 265 Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] 267 System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544] 269 Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201] 271 Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511] 273 Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511] 275 4. Test Setup 277 The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition 278 technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in 279 Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options 280 presented in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well. 281 However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be 282 explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6 283 transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and 284 Encapsulation transition technologies. 286 Although both single tester and sender/receiver setups are 287 applicable to this methodology, the single tester setup will be used 288 to describe the DUT setup options. 290 For the test setups presented in this memo, dynamic routing SHOULD 291 be employed. However, the presence of routing and management frames 292 can represent unwanted background data that can affect the 293 benchmarking result. To that end, the procedures defined in 294 [RFC2544] (Sections 11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management 295 frames SHOULD be used here as well. Moreover, the "Trial 296 description" recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are 297 valid for this memo as well. 299 In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13 300 are valid for this document as well assuming that an IPv6 version of 301 the routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used. 303 4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies 305 For the evaluation of Single translation transition technologies, a 306 single DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is 307 responsible for translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In 308 this context, the tester device SHOULD be configured to support both 309 IPvX and IPvY. 311 +--------------------+ 312 | | 313 +------------|IPvX tester IPvY|<-------------+ 314 | | | | 315 | +--------------------+ | 316 | | 317 | +--------------------+ | 318 | | | | 319 +----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+ 320 | | 321 +--------------------+ 322 Figure 1. Test setup 1 324 4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies 326 For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double 327 translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2) 328 SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX 329 packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or 330 translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are 331 de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT 332 and forwarded to the tester. 334 +--------------------+ 335 | | 336 +---------------------|IPvX tester IPvX|<------------------+ 337 | | | | 338 | +--------------------+ | 339 | | 340 | +--------------------+ +--------------------+ | 341 | | | | | | 342 +----->|IPvX DUT 1 IPvY |----->|IPvY DUT 2 IPvX |------+ 343 | | | | 344 +--------------------+ +--------------------+ 345 Figure 2. Test setup 2 347 One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to 348 reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this, 349 additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single 350 DUT setup. 352 Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single 353 DUT setup, in order to test the de-encapsulation efficiency, the 354 tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY. 356 5. Test Traffic 358 The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD 359 meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements 360 are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside 361 of the scope of this document. 363 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes 365 [RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly 366 used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). 367 [RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and 368 FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack 369 transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies 370 the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST 371 be considered. 373 The encapsulation/translation process generates different size 374 frames on different segments of the test setup. For instance, the 375 single translation transition technologies will create different 376 frame sizes on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX 377 packets are translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the 378 bandwidth of the employed media is not exceeded. To prevent 379 exceeding the limitations imposed by the media, the frame size 380 overhead needs to be taken into account when calculating the maximum 381 theoretical frame rates. The calculation method for the Ethernet, as 382 well as a calculation example are detailed in Appendix A. The 383 details of the media employed for the benchmarking tests MUST be 384 noted in all test reports. 386 In the context of frame size overhead, MTU recommendations are 387 needed in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the 388 virtual encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical 389 network interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the 390 larger MTU between the physical NICs and virtual 391 encapsulation/translation interfaces SHOULD be set for all 392 interfaces of the DUT and tester. To be more specific, the minimum 393 IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation 394 overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as 395 well as virtual ones. 397 5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet 399 Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes 400 SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links: 401 64, 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and 402 9216. 404 Note: for single translation transition technologies (e.g. NAT64) in 405 the IPv6 -> IPv4 translation direction, 64 byte frames SHOULD be 406 replaced by 84 byte frames. This would allow the frames to be 407 transported over media such as the ones described by the IEEE 802.1Q 408 standard. Moreover, this would also allow the implementation of a 409 frame identifier in the UDP data. 411 The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame 412 overhead are presented in Appendix A1. 414 5.2. Protocol Addresses 416 The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of 417 [RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4. 419 Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible 420 for the transition technologies, which employ translation. Proposed 421 IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation 422 [RFC7915] do not support the use of extension headers. 424 5.3. Traffic Setup 426 Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described 427 SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional 428 traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance 429 assessment. 431 Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more 432 reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols. 433 Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of 434 this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed. 436 Considering that a transition technology could process both native 437 IPv6 traffic and translated/encapsulated traffic, the following 438 traffic setups are recommended: 440 i) IPvX only traffic (where the IPvX traffic is to be 441 translated/encapsulated by the DUT) 442 ii) 90% IPvX traffic and 10% IPvY native traffic 443 iii) 50% IPvX traffic and 50% IPvY native traffic 444 iv) 10% IPvX traffic and 90% IPvY native traffic 446 For the benchmarks dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition 447 technologies, included in Section 8 of this memo (Concurrent TCP 448 Connection Capacity and Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate), 449 the traffic SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC3511], Sections 450 5.2.2.2 and 5.3.2.2. 452 6. Modifiers 454 The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first 455 introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important 456 aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some 457 extent the conditions of a production environment. Section 6 of 458 [RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to 459 IPv6. Their recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition 460 technologies testing as well. 462 7. Benchmarking Tests 464 The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended 465 benchmarking tests. 467 7.1. Throughput 469 Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified. 471 7.2. Latency 473 Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the 474 definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a 475 new measurement procedure. 477 Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of 478 the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. Send a stream of frames 479 at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined 480 throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at 481 least 120 seconds in duration. 483 Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60 484 seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was 485 fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was 486 received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B 487 minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242, 488 namely latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency 489 as defined for bit forwarding devices. 491 We recommend to encode the identifying tag in the payload of the 492 frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the 493 UDP header. 495 From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, 2 quantities SHOULD be 496 calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated 497 with the following formula: 499 TL=Median(Li) 501 Where: TL - the reported typical latency of the stream 503 Li -the latency for tagged frame i 505 The other measure is the worst case latency, which SHOULD be 506 calculated with the following formula: 508 WCL=L99.9thPercentile 510 Where: WCL - The reported worst case latency 512 L99.9thPercentile - The 99.9th Percentile of the stream measured 513 latencies 514 The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported 515 value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL. 517 Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency 518 (from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency 519 results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for 520 each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the 521 frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that 522 frame size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant 523 typical latency and worst case latency values for each type of data 524 stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th 525 percentiles of the 20 iterations MAY be reported in two separated 526 columns. For a fine grain analysis, the histogram (as exemplified in 527 [RFC5481] Section 4.4) of one of the iterations MAY be displayed as 528 well. 530 7.3. Packet Delay Variation 532 Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay 533 Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is 534 RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grain analysis of delay 535 variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed as well. 537 7.3.1. PDV 539 Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in 540 [RFC5481]. 542 Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput 543 for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of 544 frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined 545 throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at 546 least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described 547 by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the 548 stream using the formula: 550 PDV=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin 552 Where: D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was 553 described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream 555 Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream 557 As recommended in [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20 558 times with the reported value being the median of the recorded 559 values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated 560 to account for the variation of the dataset. 562 Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with 563 a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame 564 size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. Two 565 columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY as well be 566 displayed. Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the 567 RECOMMENDED units of measurement are milliseconds. 569 7.3.2. IPDV 571 Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined 572 in [RFC5481]. 574 Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput 575 for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of 576 frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined 577 throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at 578 least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described 579 by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for 580 each of the frames using the formula: 582 IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1) 584 Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream 586 D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream 588 Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to 589 over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement 590 SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax 592 Where: Dmin - the minimum IPDV in the stream 594 Dmed - the median IPDV of the stream 596 Dmax - the maximum IPDV in the stream 598 The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20 599 repetitions, for each of the 3 (Dmin, Dmed and Dmax) the median 600 value SHOULD be reported. 602 Reporting format: The median for the 3 proposed values SHOULD be 603 reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row 604 for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the 605 frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and 606 sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. Following the 607 recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement 608 are milliseconds. 610 7.4. Frame Loss Rate 612 Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified. 614 7.5. Back-to-back Frames 616 Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified. 618 7.6. System Recovery 620 Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified. 622 7.7. Reset 624 Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified. 626 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition 627 Technologies 629 This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful 630 IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this 631 section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test 632 parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5). 634 In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function, a network node can 635 have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the 636 network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this 637 function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511]. 638 Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2, 639 5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD 640 be performed: 642 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity 644 Use Section 5.3 of [RFC3511] unmodified. 646 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate 648 Use Section 5.3 of RFC3511 unmodified. 650 9. DNS Resolution Performance 652 This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see 653 [RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies 654 such as NAT64. 656 9.1. Test and Traffic Setup 658 The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single 659 translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1. 661 1:AAAA query +--------------------+ 662 +------------| |<-------------+ 663 | |IPv6 Tester IPv4| | 664 | +-------->| |----------+ | 665 | | +--------------------+ 3:empty | | 666 | | 6:synt'd AAAA, | | 667 | | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| | 668 | +---------| |<---------+ | 669 | |IPv6 DUT IPv4| | 670 +----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+ 671 +--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query 672 Figure 3. DNS64 test setup 674 The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps. 676 1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64 677 server) 679 2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64 680 server to authoritative DNS server) 682 3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 683 server) 685 4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server 686 to authoritative DNS server) 688 5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 689 server) 691 6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client) 693 The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS 694 server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or 695 alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used. 697 Please note that: 699 - If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit 700 then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are 701 omitted). 703 - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in 704 step 3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are 705 omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA 706 record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client. 707 - As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6 708 MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a 709 DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but 710 either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and 711 the authoritative DNS server. 713 9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance 715 Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum 716 number of successfully processed DNS requests per second. 718 Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate 719 to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a 720 predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding 721 query, having the default value 1 second) and valid (contains an 722 AAAA record) from the DUT. If the count of sent queries is equal to 723 the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is raised and 724 the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than queries were 725 sent, the rate of the queries is reduced and the test is rerun. The 726 duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds to reduce the 727 potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to exhibit higher 728 performance by storing the requests and thus utilizing also the 729 timeout time for answering them. For the same reason, no higher 730 timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. 732 The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the 733 fastest rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is 734 equal to the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment. 736 The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the median and 1st 737 /99th percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per second 738 SHOULD be calculated. 740 Details and parameters: 742 1. Caching 743 First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or 744 domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is 745 exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%, 746 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a 747 record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after 748 the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache 749 and "early enough" to be still present in the cache. 751 2. Existence of AAAA record 752 First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not 753 have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record. 754 Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% 755 and 100% of which have an AAAA record. 757 Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all 758 their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with 759 0% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED 760 and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names 761 are cached then the results do not depend on what percentage of the 762 domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not 763 worth testing one by one.) 765 Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median 766 of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the 767 above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be 768 complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability 769 of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st 770 and 99th percentiles MAY be presented in a two dimensional table 771 where the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names 772 and the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two 773 table headings SHOULD contain these percentage values. 774 Alternatively, the results MAY be presented as the corresponding two 775 dimensional graph, too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the 776 median values with the percentiles as error bars. From both the 777 table and the graph, one dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any 778 given fixed percentage value of the other dimension. In this case, 779 the fixed value MUST be given together with a one dimensional table 780 or graph. 782 9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester 784 Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per 785 second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order 786 to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester 787 itself influences the results. For performing a self-test, the 788 tester is looped back (leaving out DUT) and its authoritative DNS 789 server subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA 790 record queries. For passing the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able 791 to answer AAAA record queries at 2*(r+delta) rate within 0.25*t 792 timeout, where the value of delta is at least 0.1. 794 Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query 795 may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT, the first one of 796 them is for an AAAA record and the second one is for an A record 797 (the are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA 798 record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the 799 authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the 800 queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of 801 the timeout time. 803 Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++ is available 804 from [Dns64perf] and it is documented in [Lencse1]. It implements 805 only the client part of the Tester and it should be used together 806 with an authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g. BIND, NSD or 807 YADIFA. Its experimental extension for testing caching is available 808 from [Lencse2] and it is documented in [Lencse3]. 810 10. Overload Scalability 812 Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of 813 network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not 814 yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload 815 scalability as the ability of each transition technology to 816 accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor 817 performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured 818 by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with 819 an increased number of network flows. 821 The following subsections describe how the test setups can be 822 modified to create network growth and how the associated performance 823 degradation can be quantified. 825 10.1. Test Setup 827 The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create 828 network growth. 830 10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies 832 In the case of single translation transition technologies the 833 network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network 834 flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 4). 836 +-------------------------+ 837 +------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+ 838 | +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ | 839 | | ...| | | | 840 | | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | | 841 | | | +-------------------------+ | | | 842 | | | | | | 843 | | | +-------------------------+ | | | 844 | | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | | 845 | | ...| DUT | | | 846 | +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ | 847 +----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+ 848 +-------------------------+ 849 Figure 4. Test setup 3 851 10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies 853 Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a 854 multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point 855 scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is 856 designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the 857 recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of 858 client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (See Figure 5). 860 +-------------------------+ 861 +--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+ 862 | +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ | 863 | | ...| | | | 864 | | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | | 865 | | | +-------------------------+ | | | 866 | | | | | | 867 | | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | | 868 | | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | | 869 | | +-----------------+ | | | | 870 | | ... | | | | 871 | | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | | 872 | +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ | 873 | +-----------------+ | | | 874 | +-----------------+ | | | 875 +---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+ 876 +-----------------+ +---------------+ 877 Figure 5. Test setup 4 879 This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server 880 device. However, for testing the overload scalability of the client 881 DUTs additional recommendations are needed. 883 For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be 884 created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client 885 device and n the number of client devices connected to the same 886 server device. 887 For the translation based transition technologies the client devices 888 can be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup 889 presented in Figure 4. 891 10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation 893 10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load 895 Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n 896 parallel and simultaneous network flows. 898 Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have 899 to be performed for one network flow. 901 The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the 902 network flows are started simultaneously. The performance 903 degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as 904 relative performance change between the 1-flow (single flow) results 905 and the n-flow results, using the following formula: 907 Xn - X1 908 Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow 909 X1 Xn - result for n-flows 911 As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be 912 deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as 913 described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by 914 Section 4. 916 Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as 917 a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly 918 specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there 919 SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table 920 SHOULD also state the applied frame rate. 922 10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load 924 Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n 925 parallel and incrementally started network flows. 927 Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have 928 to be performed for one network flow. 930 The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the 931 network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after 932 time T. In other words, if flow I is started at time x, flow i+1 933 will be started at time x+T. Considering the time T, the time 934 duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary 935 to start all the flows, namely (n-1)xT. The measurement for the 936 first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration. 938 The performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD 939 be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow 940 results and the n-flow results, using the following formula 941 presented in Section 9.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 942 1/4*n, 1/2*n and 3/4*n MAY also be performed. 944 Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as 945 a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly 946 specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there 947 SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table 948 SHOULD also state the applied frame rate and time duration T, used 949 as increment step between the network flows. The units of 950 measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the intermediary 951 degradation points MAY also be displayed. 953 11. NAT44 and NAT66 955 Although these technologies are not the primarily scope of this 956 document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single 957 translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed 958 to benchmark NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior 959 described by [RFC7857]) implementations and NAT66 (as defined by 960 [RFC6296]) implementations. 962 12. Summarizing function and variation 964 To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using 965 the tests presented in Sections 6 through 9, multiple test 966 iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure 967 of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare 968 the results obtained across different iterations. However, over- 969 summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number. 971 Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter 972 the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the 973 proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing 974 function would fit better. 976 To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as 977 suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as 978 variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The 979 median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the 980 recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3. 982 For a fine grain analysis of the frequency distribution of the data, 983 histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be 984 employed. 986 13. Security Considerations 988 Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to 989 technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory 990 environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints 991 specified in the sections above. 993 The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup 994 and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test 995 traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test 996 management network. 998 Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying 999 solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special 1000 capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for 1001 benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising 1002 from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production 1003 networks. 1005 14. IANA Considerations 1007 The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 1008 benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was 1009 reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient 1010 for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. Thus, no action is 1011 requested. 1013 15. References 1015 15.1. Normative References 1017 [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network 1018 Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, 1019 July 1991, . 1021 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1022 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 1023 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 1026 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 1027 "Framework for IP performance metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 1028 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, . 1031 [RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for 1032 Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI 1033 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, . 1036 [RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall 1037 Devices", RFC 2647, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, August 1999, 1038 . 1040 [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation 1041 Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI 1042 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, . 1045 [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S. and T. Martin, 1046 "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 1047 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003, . 1050 [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. 1051 Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network 1052 Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May 1053 2008, . 1055 [RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation 1056 Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, 1057 March 2009, . 1059 [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera, 1060 "Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, DOI 1061 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, . 1064 15.2. Informative References 1066 [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P., and M. Holdrege. "IP Network Address 1067 Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC2663, 1068 DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, . 1071 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 1072 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 1073 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, . 1076 [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, 1077 "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for 1078 IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006, . 1081 [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, 1082 "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 1083 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007, 1084 1086 [RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 1087 Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569, 1088 January 2010, . 1090 [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for 1091 IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, 1092 April 2011, . 1094 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 1095 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 1096 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, 1097 April 2011, . 1099 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 1100 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 1101 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 1102 DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, . 1105 [RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The 1106 China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI 1107 Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 1108 Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI 1109 10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, . 1112 [RFC6296] Wasserman, M., and F. Baker. "IPv6-to-IPv6 network prefix 1113 translation." RFC6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011. 1115 [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- 1116 Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 1117 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011, 1118 . 1120 [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: 1121 Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 1122 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, . 1125 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 1126 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890, 1127 DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, . 1130 [RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I. 1131 Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual- 1132 Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596, 1133 July 2015, . 1135 [RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., 1136 Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and 1137 Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI 1138 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, . 1141 [RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., 1142 and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using 1143 Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July 1144 2015, . 1146 [RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., 1147 and K. Naito "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) 1148 Behavioral Requirements" RFC 7857, DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, 1149 April 2016, . 1151 [RFC7915] LBao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, 1152 "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI 1153 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, . 1156 [Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester", 1157 available: https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp 1159 [ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 1160 Transition Technologies", IETF 95, Buenos Aires, 1161 Argentina, April 2016, available: 1162 https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-bmwg- 1163 2.pdf 1165 [Lencse1] Lencse, G., Bakai, D, "Design and Implementation of a Test 1166 Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE 1167 Transactions on Communications, to be published (vol. 1168 E100-B, no. 6. pp. -, June 2017.), advance publication is 1169 available: http://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007 1170 revised version is freely available: 1171 http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEICE-2016- 1172 dns64perfpp-revised.pdf 1174 [Lencse2] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/ 1176 [Lencse3] G. Lencse, "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the 1177 Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review 1178 version is available: 1179 http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEICE-2016- 1180 dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf 1182 16. Acknowledgements 1184 The authors would like to thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki 1185 Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should 1186 be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous 1187 support. The thank you list should also include Emanuel Popa and the 1188 RCS&RDS Backbone Team for their support and insights. We would also 1189 like to thank Scott Bradner for the useful suggestions. We also note 1190 that portions of text from Scott's documents were used in this memo 1191 (e.g. Latency section). A big thank you to Al Morton and Fred Baker 1192 for their detailed review of the draft and very helpful suggestions. 1193 Other helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran 1194 Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, 1195 Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis, Bela Almasi, 1196 Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich and Stenio Fernandes. A special thank you 1197 to the RFC Editor Team for their thorough editorial review and 1198 helpful suggestions. This document was prepared using 2-Word- 1199 v2.0.template.dot. 1201 Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates 1203 This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the 1204 theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as 1205 example media. The formula takes into account the frame size 1206 overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process. 1207 For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20 1208 bytes of overhead to each frame. 1210 Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size 1211 overhead created by the encapsulation on translation process, the 1212 maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using 1213 the following formula: 1215 Line Rate (bps) 1216 ------------------------------ 1217 (8bits/byte)*(X+O+20)bytes/frame 1219 The calculation is based on the formula recommended by RFC5180 in 1220 Appendix A1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a 1221 6in4 implementation over 10Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is: 1223 10,000,000(bps) 1224 ------------------------------ = 12,019 fps 1225 (8bits/byte)*(64+20+20)bytes/frame 1227 The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation 1228 can be found in the following table: 1230 +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ 1231 | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s | 1232 | (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | 1233 +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ 1234 | 64 | 12,019 | 120,192 | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 | 1235 | 128 | 7,440 | 74,405 | 744,048 | 7,440,476 | 1236 | 256 | 4,223 | 42,230 | 422,297 | 4,222,973 | 1237 | 512 | 2,264 | 22,645 | 226,449 | 2,264,493 | 1238 | 678 | 1,740 | 17,409 | 174,094 | 1,740,947 | 1239 | 1024 | 1,175 | 11,748 | 117,481 | 1,174,812 | 1240 | 1280 | 947 | 9,470 | 94,697 | 946,970 | 1241 | 1518 | 802 | 8,023 | 80,231 | 802,311 | 1242 | 1522 | 800 | 8,003 | 80,026 | 800,256 | 1243 | 2048 | 599 | 5,987 | 59,866 | 598,659 | 1244 | 4096 | 302 | 3,022 | 30,222 | 302,224 | 1245 | 8192 | 152 | 1,518 | 15,185 | 151,846 | 1246 | 9216 | 135 | 1,350 | 13,505 | 135,048 | 1247 +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ 1249 Authors' Addresses 1250 Marius Georgescu 1251 RCS&RDS 1252 Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75 1253 Bucharest 030167 1254 Romania 1256 Phone: +40 31 005 0979 1257 Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro 1259 Liviu Pislaru 1260 RCS&RDS 1261 Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75 1262 Bucharest 030167 1263 Romania 1265 Phone: +40 31 005 0979 1266 Email: liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro 1268 Gabor Lencse 1269 Szechenyi Istvan University 1270 Egyetem ter 1. 1271 Gyor 1272 Hungary 1274 Phone: +36 20 775 8267 1275 Email: lencse@sze.hu