Internet DRAFT - draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
Network Working Group M. Georgescu
Internet Draft NAIST
Intended status: Informational July 2, 2015
Expires: January 2016
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
draft-georgescu-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-01.txt
Abstract
There are benchmarking methodologies addressing the performance of
network interconnect devices that are IPv4- or IPv6-capable, but the
IPv6 transition technologies are outside of their scope. This
document provides complementary guidelines for evaluating the
performance of IPv6 transition technologies. The methodology also
includes a tentative metric for benchmarking scalability.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
3. Test Setup.....................................................4
3.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies......................5
3.2. Encapsulation/Translation Based Transition Technologies...5
4. Test Traffic...................................................6
4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................6
4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................7
4.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used over SONET....................7
4.2. Protocol Addresses........................................7
4.3. Traffic Setup.............................................7
5. Modifiers......................................................8
6. Benchmarking Tests.............................................8
6.1. Throughput................................................8
6.2. Latency...................................................8
6.3. Packet Delay Variation....................................8
6.3.1. PDV..................................................8
6.3.2. IPDV.................................................9
6.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................10
6.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................10
6.6. System Recovery..........................................10
6.7. Reset....................................................10
7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies.....................................................11
7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................11
7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................11
8. Scalability...................................................11
8.1. Test Setup...............................................12
8.1.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies................12
8.1.2. Encapsulation/Translation Transition Technologies...12
8.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation.....................13
9. Security Considerations.......................................14
10. IANA Considerations..........................................14
11. Conclusions..................................................14
12. References...................................................14
12.1. Normative References....................................14
12.2. Informative References..................................15
13. Acknowledgments..............................................16
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................17
A.1. Ethernet.................................................17
A.2. SONET....................................................18
1. Introduction
The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] help vendors
and network operators alike analyze the performance of IPv4 and
IPv6-capable network devices. The methodology presented in [RFC2544]
is mostly IP version independent, while [RFC5180] contains
complementary recommendations, which are specific to the latest IP
version, IPv6. However, [RFC5180] does not cover IPv6 transition
technologies.
IPv6 is not backwards compatible, which means that IPv4-only nodes
cannot directly communicate with IPv6-only nodes. To solve this
issue, IPv6 transition technologies have been proposed and
implemented, many of which are still in development.
This document presents benchmarking guidelines dedicated to IPv6
transition technologies. The benchmarking tests can provide insights
about the performance of these technologies, which can act as useful
feedback for developers, as well as for network operators going
through the IPv6 transition process.
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies
Two of the basic transition technologies, dual IP layer (also known
as dual stack) and encapsulation, are presented in [RFC4213].
IPv4/IPv6 Translation is presented in [RFC6144]. Most of the
transition technologies employ at least one variation of these
mechanisms. Some of the more complex ones (e.g. DSLite [RFC6333])
are using all three. In this context, a generic classification of
the transition technologies can prove useful.
Tentatively, we can consider a basic production IP-based network as
being constructed using the following components:
o a Customer Edge (CE) segment
o a Core network segment
o a Provider Edge (PE) segment
According to the technology used for the core network traversal the
transition technologies can be categorized as follows:
1. Single-stack: either IPv4 or IPv6 is used to traverse the core
network, and translation is used at one of the edges
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
2. Dual-stack: the core network devices implement both IP protocols
3. Encapsulation-based: an encapsulation mechanism is used to
traverse the core network; CE nodes encapsulate the IPvX packets
in IPvY packets, while PE nodes are responsible for the
decapsulation process.
4. Translation-based: a translation mechanism is employed for the
traversal of the core network; CE nodes translate IPvX packets to
IPvY packets and PE nodes translate the packets back to IPvX.
The performance of Dual-stack transition technologies can be fully
evaluated using the benchmarking methodologies presented by
[RFC2544] and [RFC5180]. Consequently, this document focuses on the
other 3 categories: Single-stack, Encapsulation-based, and
Translation-based transition technologies.
Another important aspect by which the IPv6 transition technologies
can be categorized is their use of stateful or stateless mapping
algorithms. The technologies that use stateful mapping algorithms
(e.g. Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]) create dynamic correlations between
IP addresses or {IP address, transport protocol, transport port
number} tuples, which are stored in a state table. For ease of
reference, the IPv6 transition technologies which employ stateful
mapping algorithms will be called stateful IPv6 transition
technologies. The efficiency with which the state table is managed
can be an important performance indicator for these technologies.
Hence, for the stateful IPv6 transition technologies additional
benchmarking tests are RECOMMENDED.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.
3. Test Setup
The test environment setup options recommended for IPv6 transition
technologies benchmarking are very similar to the ones presented in
Section 6 of [RFC2544]. In the case of the tester setup, the options
presented in [RFC2544] can be applied here as well. However, the
Device under test (DUT) setup options should be explained in the
context of the 3 targeted categories of IPv6 transition
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
technologies: Single-stack, Encapsulation-based and Translation-
based transition technologies.
Although both single tester and sender/receiver setups are
applicable to this methodology, the single tester setup will be used
to describe the DUT setup options.
For the test setups presented in this memo dynamic routing SHOULD be
employed. However, the presence of routing and management frames can
represent unwanted background data that can affect the benchmarking
result. To that end, the procedures defined in [RFC2544] (Sections
11.2 and 11.3) related to routing and management frames SHOULD be
used here as well. Moreover, the "Trial description" recommendations
presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are valid for this memo as well.
3.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies
For the evaluation of Single-stack transition technologies a single
DUT setup (see Figure 1) SHOULD be used. The DUT is responsible for
translating the IPvX packets into IPvY packets. In this context, the
tester device should be configured to support both IPvX and IPvY.
+--------------------+
| |
+------------|IPvX tester IPvY|<-------------+
| | | |
| +--------------------+ |
| |
| +--------------------+ |
| | | |
+----------->|IPvX DUT IPvY|--------------+
| (translator) |
+--------------------+
Figure 1. Test setup 1
3.2. Encapsulation/Translation Based Transition Technologies
For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation-based and
Translation-based transition technologies a dual DUT setup (see
Figure 2) SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of
IPvX packets. The DUT CE is responsible for the encapsulation or
translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the DUT PE and
forwarded to the tester.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
+--------------------+
| |
+---------------------|IPvX tester IPvX|<------------------+
| | | |
| +--------------------+ |
| |
| +--------------------+ +--------------------+ |
| | | | | |
+----->|IPvX DUT CE IPvY|----->|IPvY DUT PE IPvX|------+
| trans/encaps | | trans/decaps |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 2. Test setup 2
In the case of translation based transition technology, the DUT CE
and DUT PE machines MAY be tested separately as well. These tests
can represent a fine grain performance analysis of the IPvX to IPvY
translation direction versus the IPvY to IPvX translation direction.
The tests SHOULD follow the test setup presented in Figure 1.
4. Test Traffic
The test traffic represents the experimental workload and SHOULD
meet the requirements specified in this section. The requirements
are dedicated to unicast IP traffic. Multicast IP traffic is outside
of the scope of this document.
4.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
[RFC5180] describes the frame size requirements for two commonly
used media types: Ethernet and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network).
[RFC2544] covers also other media types, such as token ring and
FDDI. The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack
transition technologies. For the rest of the transition technologies
the frame overhead introduced by translation or encapsulation MUST
be considered.
The encapsulation/translation process generates different size
frames on different segments of the test setup. For example, the
single-stack transition technologies will create different frame
sizes on the receiving segment of the test setup, as IPvX packets
are translated to IPvY. This is not a problem if the bandwidth of
the employed media is not exceeded. To prevent exceeding the
limitations imposed by the media, the frame size overhead needs to
be taken into account when calculating the maximum theoretical frame
rates. The calculation methods for the two media types, Ethernet and
SONET, as well as a calculation example are detailed in Appendix A.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
In the context of frame size overhead MTU recommendations are needed
in order to avoid frame loss due to MTU mismatch between the virtual
encapsulation/translation interfaces and the physical network
interface controllers (NICs). To avoid this situation, the larger
MTU between the physical NICs and virtual encapsulation/translation
interfaces SHOULD be set for all interfaces of the DUT and tester.
4.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet
Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
SHOULD be used for benchmarking Ethernet traffic: 64, 128, 256, 512,
1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and 9216.
The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
overhead are presented in Appendix A1.
4.1.2. Frame Sizes to Be Used over SONET
Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the frame sizes for SONET
traffic SHOULD be: 47, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2048,
4096 bytes.
An example of theoretical maximum frame rates calculation is shown
in Appendix A2.
4.2. Protocol Addresses
The selected protocol addresses should follow the recommendations of
[RFC5180](Section 5) for IPv6 and [RFC2544](Section 12) for IPv4.
Note: testing traffic with extension headers might not be possible
for the transition technologies which employ translation.
4.3. Traffic Setup
Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional
traffic tests MAY also be performed for a fine grained performance
assessment.
Because of the simplicity of UDP, UDP measurements offer a more
reliable basis for comparison than other transport layer protocols.
Consequently, for the benchmarking tests described in Section 6 of
this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.
Considering that the stateful transition technologies need to manage
the state table for each connection, a connection-oriented transport
layer protocol needs to be used with the test traffic. Consequently,
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
TCP test traffic SHOULD be employed for the tests described in
Section 7 of this document.
5. Modifiers
The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180]
describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their
recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies
testing as well.
6. Benchmarking Tests
The benchmarking test conditions described in [RFC2544] (Sections
24, 25, 26) are also recommended here. The following sub-sections
contain the list of all recommended benchmarking tests.
6.1. Throughput
Objective: To determine the DUT throughput as defined in [RFC1242].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in [RFC1242].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.3. Packet Delay Variation
Considering two of the metrics presented in [RFC5481], Packet Delay
Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV), it is
RECOMMENDED to measure PDV. For a fine grain analysis of delay
variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed as well.
6.3.1. PDV
Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in
[RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the
stream using the formula:
PDV=Avg(D(i) - Dmin)
Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i-th frame in the stream
Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream
As recommended in RFC 2544, the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times with the reported value being the average of the recorded
values. Moreover, the margin of error from the average MAY be
evaluated following the formula:
StDev
MoE= alpha * ----------
sqrt(N)
Where: alpha - critical value; the recommended value is 2.576 for
a 99% level of confidence
StDev - standard deviation
N - number of repetitions
Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with
a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame
size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. A column
for the margin of error values MAY as well be displayed.
6.3.2. IPDV
Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined
in [RFC5481].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput
for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of
frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined
throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at
least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the One-way delay as described
by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for
each of the frames using the formula:
IPDV(i)=D(i) - D(i-1)
Where: D(i) - the One-way delay of the i th frame in the stream
D(i-1) - the One-way delay of i-1 th frame in the stream
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to
over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement
SHOULD include 3 values: Dmin, Davg, and Dmax
Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream
Davg - the average One-way delay of the stream
Dmax - the maximum One-way delay in the stream
As recommended in RFC 2544, the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times. The average of the 3 proposed values SHOULD be reported. The
IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row for each of
the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the frame size
and associated frame rate for the tested media types and sub-columns
for the three proposed reported values.
6.4. Frame Loss Rate
Objective: To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in
[RFC1242], of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates
and frame sizes.
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.5. Back-to-back Frames
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
back frames as defined in [RFC1242].
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.6. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition.
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
6.7. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
device or software reset.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Procedure: As described by [RFC2544].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC2544].
7. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies
This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
parameters recommendations presented in [RFC3511] (Sections 4, 5).
In addition to the IPv4/IPv6 transition function a network node can
have a firewall function. This document is targeting only the
network devices that do not have a firewall function, as this
function can be benchmarked using the recommendations of [RFC3511].
Consequently, only the tests described in [RFC3511] (Sections 5.2,
5.3) are RECOMMENDED. Namely, the following additional tests SHOULD
be performed:
7.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity
Objective: To determine the maximum number of concurrent TCP
connections supported through or with the DUT, as defined in [RFC
2647]. This test is supposed to find the maximum number of entries
the DUT can store in its state table.
Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].
7.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate
Objective: To determine the maximum TCP connection establishment
rate through or with the DUT, as defined by RFC [2647]. This test
is expected to find the maximum rate at which the DUT can update its
connection table.
Procedure: As described by [RFC3511].
Reporting Format: As described by [RFC3511].
8. Scalability
Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
yet been approached.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Scalability can be defined as the ability of each transition
technology to accommodate network growth.
Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering
this, scalability can be measured by quantifying the network
performance degradation while the network grows.
The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
degradation can be quantified.
8.1. Test Setup
The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create
network growth.
8.1.1. Single-stack Transition Technologies
In the case of single-stack transition technologies the network
growth can be generated by increasing the number of network flows
generated by the tester machine (see Figure 3).
+-------------------------+
+------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+
| +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ |
| | ...| | | |
| | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | |
| | ...| DUT | | |
| +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ |
+----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+
+-------------------------+
Figure 3. Test setup 3
8.1.2. Encapsulation/Translation Transition Technologies
Similarly, for the encapsulation/translation based technologies a
multi-flow setup is recommended. For most transition technologies,
the provider edge device is designed to support more than one
customer edge network. Hence, the recommended test setup is a n:1
design, where n is the number of CE DUTs connected to the same PE
DUT (See Figure 4).
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
+-------------------------+
+--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+
| +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ |
| | ...| | | |
| | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | |
| | +--->|NFn DUT CEn NFn|--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | |
| | +-----------------+ | | | |
| | ... | | | |
| | +-----------------+ | DUT PE | | |
| +------->|NF2 DUT CE2 NF2|--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ |
| +-----------------+ | | |
| +-----------------+ | | |
+---------->|NF1 DUT CE1 NF1|--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+
+-----------------+ +---------------+
Figure 4. Test setup 4
This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the PE
device. However, for testing the scalability of the DUT CEs
additional recommendations are needed.
For encapsulation based transition technologies a m:n setup can be
created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same CE
device and n the number of CE devices connected to the same PE
device.
For the translation based transition technologies the CE devices can
be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup
presented in Figure 3.
8.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel network flows.
Procedure: First the benchmarking tests presented in Section 6 have
to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows. The
performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be
calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results
and the n-flow results, using the following formula:
Xn - X1
Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow
X1 Xn - result for n-flows
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as
a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly
specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there
SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table
SHOULD also state the applied frame rate.
9. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
specified in the sections above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Special
capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
10. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6
benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was
reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient
for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies.
11. Conclusions
The methodologies described in [RFC2544] and [RFC5180] can be used
for benchmarking the performance of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-
stack supporting network devices. This document presents
complementary recommendations dedicated to IPv6 transition
technologies. Furthermore, the methodology includes a tentative
approach for benchmarking scalability by quantifying the performance
degradation associated with network growth.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
[RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6333] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
April 2013.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", [RFC1242], July 1991.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", [RFC2544], March 1999.
[RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall
Devices", [RFC2647], August 1999.
[RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., Martin, T.,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance",
[RFC3511], April 2003.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
13. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Professor Youki Kadobayashi for his
constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the
NECOMA project members for their continuous support. Helpful
comments and suggestions were offered by Scott Bradner, Al Morton,
Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname
Nishizuka and Yasuhiro Ohara. A special thank you to the RFC Editor
Team for their thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates
This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over two types of
commonly used media. The formulas take into account the frame size
overhead created by the encapsulation or the translation process.
For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20
bytes of overhead to each frame.
A.1. Ethernet
Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size
overhead created by the encapsulation on translation process, the
maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using
the following formula:
Line Rate (bps)
------------------------------
(8bits/byte)*(X+O+20)bytes/frame
The calculation is based on the formula recommended by RFC5180 in
Appendix A1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a
6in4 implementation over 10Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is:
10,000,000(bps)
------------------------------ = 12,019 fps
(8bits/byte)*(64+20+20)bytes/frame
The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
can be found in the following table:
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
| (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| 64 | 12,019 | 120,192 | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 |
| 128 | 7,440 | 74,405 | 744,048 | 7,440,476 |
| 256 | 4,223 | 42,230 | 422,297 | 4,222,973 |
| 512 | 2,264 | 22,645 | 226,449 | 2,264,493 |
| 1024 | 1,175 | 11,748 | 117,481 | 1,174,812 |
| 1280 | 947 | 9,470 | 94,697 | 946,970 |
| 1518 | 802 | 8,023 | 80,231 | 802,311 |
| 1522 | 800 | 8,003 | 80,026 | 800,256 |
| 2048 | 599 | 5,987 | 59,866 | 598,659 |
| 4096 | 302 | 3,022 | 30,222 | 302,224 |
| 8192 | 152 | 1,518 | 15,185 | 151,846 |
| 9216 | 135 | 1,350 | 13,505 | 135,048 |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
A.2. SONET
Similarly for SONET, if X is the target frame size and O the frame
size overhead, the recommended formula for calculating the maximum
theoretical frame rate is:
Line Rate (bps)
------------------------------
(8bits/byte)*(X+O+1)bytes/frame
The calculation formula is based on the recommendation of RFC5180 in
Appendix A2.
As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a 6in4
implementation over a 10Mb/s PoS interface with 64 bytes frames is:
10,000,000(bps)
------------------------------ = 14,706 fps
(8bits/byte)*(64+20+1)bytes/frame
The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation
can be found in the following table:
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s |
| (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
| 47 | 18,382 | 183,824 | 1,838,235 | 18,382,353 |
| 64 | 14,706 | 147,059 | 1,470,588 | 14,705,882 |
| 128 | 8,389 | 83,893 | 838,926 | 8,389,262 |
| 256 | 4,513 | 45,126 | 451,264 | 4,512,635 |
| 512 | 2,345 | 23,452 | 234,522 | 2,345,216 |
| 1024 | 1,196 | 11,962 | 119,617 | 1,196,172 |
| 2048 | 604 | 6,042 | 60,416 | 604,157 |
| 4096 | 304 | 3,036 | 30,362 | 303,619 |
+------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking July 2015
Authors' Addresses
Marius Georgescu
Nara Institute of Science and Technology (NAIST)
Takayama 8916-5
Nara
Japan
Phone: +81 743 72 5216
Email: liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp
Georgescu Expires January 2, 2016 [Page 19]
