Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence
Benchmarking Working Group R. Papneja
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational B. Parise
Expires: July 20, 2015 Cisco Systems
S. Hares
Huawei Technologies
D. Lee
IXIA
I. Varlashkin
Google
January 16, 2015
Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane
Convergence
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05.txt
Abstract
BGP is widely deployed and used by several service providers as the
default Inter AS routing protocol. It is of utmost importance to
ensure that when a BGP peer or a downstream link of a BGP peer fails,
the alternate paths are rapidly used and routes via these alternate
paths are installed. This document provides the basic BGP
Benchmarking Methodology using existing BGP Convergence Terminology,
RFC 4098.
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Benchmarking Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Purpose of BGP FIB (Data Plane) Convergence . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Control Plane Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Benchmarking Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Existing Definitions and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Test Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Reference Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Number of Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Number of Routes per Peer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Policy Processing/Reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..) . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Interface Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. Measurement Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. Measurement Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9. Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.10. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Basic Convergence Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1. RIB-IN Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2. RIB-OUT Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.3. eBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.4. iBGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. BGP Failure/Convergence Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1. Physical Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.2. Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End . . . . . 20
5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on
Emulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. BGP Hard Reset Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4.1. BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT . . . . . . 21
5.5. BGP Soft Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.6. BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7. BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time . . . . . . . . 26
5.8. BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
1. Introduction
This document defines the methodology for benchmarking data plane FIB
convergence performance of BGP in routers and switches using
topologies of 3 or 4 nodes. The methodology proposed in this
document applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 and if a particular test is
unique to one version, it is marked accordingly. For IPv6
benchmarking the device under test will require the support of Multi-
Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760, RFC2545]. Similarly both iBGP & eBGP
are covered in the tests as applicable.
The scope of this document is to provide methodology for BGP protocol
FIB convergence measurements with BGP functionality limited to IPv4 &
IPv6 as defined in RFC 4271 and Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) [RFC4760,
RFC2545]. Other BGP extensions to support layer-2, layer-3 virtual
private networks (VPN) are outside the scope of this document.
Interaction with IGPs (IGP interworking) is outside the scope of this
document.
1.1. Benchmarking Definitions
The terminology used in this document is defined in [RFC4098]. One
additional term is defined in this draft: FIB (Data plane) BGP
Convergence.
FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB
changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed
route. RFC 4098 defines the terms BGP device, FIB and the forwarded
traffic. Data plane convergence is different than control plane
convergence within a node.
This document defines methodology to test
- Data plane convergence on a single BGP device that supports the BGP
functionality with scope as outlined above
- using test topology of 3 or 4 nodes which are sufficient to
recreate the Convergence events used in the various tests of this
draft
1.2. Purpose of BGP FIB (Data Plane) Convergence
In the current Internet architecture the Inter-Autonomous System
(inter-AS) transit is primarily available through BGP. To maintain
reliable connectivity within intra-domains or across inter-domains,
fast recovery from failures remains most critical. To ensure minimal
traffic losses, many service providers are requiring BGP
implementations to converge the entire Internet routing table within
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
sub-seconds at FIB level.
Furthermore, to compare these numbers amongst various devices,
service providers are also looking at ways to standardize the
convergence measurement methods. This document offers test methods
for simple topologies. These simple tests will provide a quick high-
level check of the BGP data plane convergence across multiple
implementations from different vendors.
1.3. Control Plane Convergence
The convergence of BGP occurs at two levels: RIB and FIB convergence.
RFC 4098 defines terms for BGP control plane convergence.
Methodologies which test control plane convergence are out of scope
for this draft.
1.4. Benchmarking Testing
In order to ensure that the results obtained in tests are repeatable,
careful setup of initial conditions and exact steps are required.
This document proposes these initial conditions, test steps, and
result checking. To ensure uniformity of the results all optional
parameters SHOULD be disabled and all settings SHOULD be changed to
default, these may include BGP timers as well.
2. Existing Definitions and Requirements
RFC 1242, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
[RFC1242] and RFC 2285, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices" [RFC2285] SHOULD be reviewed in conjunction with this
document. WLAN-specific terms and definitions are also provided in
Clauses 3 and 4 of the IEEE 802.11 standard [802.11]. Commonly used
terms may also be found in RFC 1983 [RFC1983].
For the sake of clarity and continuity, this document adopts the
general template for benchmarking terminology set out in Section 2 of
RFC 1242. Definitions are organized in alphabetical order, and
grouped into sections for ease of reference. The following terms are
assumed to be taken as defined in RFC 1242 [RFC1242]: Throughput,
Latency, Constant Load, Frame Loss Rate, and Overhead Behavior. In
addition, the following terms are taken as defined in [RFC2285]:
Forwarding Rates, Maximum Forwarding Rate, Loads, Device Under Test
(DUT), and System Under Test (SUT).
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Test Topologies
This section describes the test setups for use in BGP benchmarking
tests measuring convergence of the FIB (data plane) after the BGP
updates has been received.
These test setups have 3 or 4 nodes with the following configuration:
1. Basic Test Setup
2. Three node setup for iBGP or eBGP convergence
3. Setup for eBGP multihop test scenario
4. Four node setup for iBGP or eBGP convergence
Individual tests refer to these topologies.
Figures 1-4 use the following conventions
o AS-X: Autonomous System X
o Loopback Int: Loopback interface on the BGP enabled device
o HLP,HLP1,HLP2: Helper routers running the same version of BGP as
DUT
o Enable NTP or use any external clock source to synchronize to the
nodes
3.1. General Reference Topologies
Emulator acts as 1 or more BGP peers for different testcases.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
+----------+ +------------+
| | traffic interfaces | |
| |-----------------------1---- | tx |
| |-----------------------2---- | tr1 |
| |-----------------------3-----| tr2 |
| DUT | | Emulator |
| | routing interfaces | |
| Dp1 |--------------------------- |Emp1 |
| | BGP Peering | |
| Dp2 |---------------------------- |Emp2 |
| | BGP Peering | |
+----------+ +------------+
Figure 1 Basic Test Setup
+------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| HLP | | DUT | | Emulator |
| (AS-X) |--------| (AS-Y) |-----------| (AS-Z) |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| |
| |
+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Three Node Setup for eBGP and iBGP Convergence
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
+----------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
+------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| HLP | | DUT | | Emulator |
| (AS-X) |--------| (AS-Y) |-----------| (AS-Z) |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
|Loopback-Int |Loopback-Int
| |
+ +
Figure 3 BGP Convergence for eBGP Multihop Scenario
+---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| HLP1 | | DUT | | HLP2 | |Emulator |
| (AS-X) |-----| (AS-X) |-----| (AS-Y) |-----| (AS-Z) |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------+
Figure 4 Four Node Setup for EBGP and IBGP Convergence
4. Test Considerations
The test cases for measuring convergence for iBGP and eBGP are
different. Both iBGP and eBGP use different mechanisms to advertise,
install and learn the routes. Typically, an iBGP route on the DUT is
installed and exported when the next-hop is valid. For eBGP the
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
route is installed on the DUT with the remote interface address as
the next-hop, with the exception of the multihop test case (as
specified in the test).
4.1. Number of Peers
Number of Peers is defined as the number of BGP neighbors or sessions
the DUT has at the beginning of the test. The peers are established
before the tests begin. The relationship could be either, iBGP or
eBGP peering depending upon the test case requirement.
The DUT establishes one or more BGP sessions with one more emulated
routers or helper nodes. Additional peers can be added based on the
testing requirements. The number of peers enabled during the testing
should be well documented in the report matrix.
4.2. Number of Routes per Peer
Number of Routes per Peer is defined as the number of routes
advertised or learnt by the DUT per session or through a neighbor
relationship with an emulator or helper node. The tester, emulating
as neighbor MUST advertise at least one route per peer.
Each test run must identify the route stream in terms of route
packing, route mixture, and number of routes. This route stream must
be well documented in the reporting stream. RFC 4098 defines these
terms.
It is RECOMMENDED that the user consider advertising the entire
current Internet routing table per peering session using an Internet
route mixture with unique or non-unique routes. If multiple peers
are used, it is important to precisely document the timing sequence
between the peer sending routes (as defined in RFC 4098).
4.3. Policy Processing/Reconfiguration
The DUT MUST run one baseline test where policy is Minimal policy as
defined in RFC 4098. Additional runs may be done with policy set-up
before the tests begin. Exact policy settings MUST be documented as
part of the test.
4.4. Configured Parameters (Timers, etc..)
There are configured parameters and timers that may impact the
measured BGP convergence times.
The benchmark metrics MAY be measured at any fixed values for these
configured parameters.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
It is RECOMMENDED these configure parameters have the following
settings: a) default values specified by the respective RFC b)
platform-specific default parameters and c) values as expected in the
operational network. All optional BGP settings MUST be kept
consistent across iterations of any specific tests
Examples of the configured parameters that may impact measured BGP
convergence time include, but are not limited to:
1. Interface failure detection timer
2. BGP Keepalive timer
3. BGP Holdtime
4. BGP update delay timer
5. ConnectRetry timer
6. TCP Segment Size
7. Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI)
8. MinASOriginationInterval (MAOI)
9. Route Flap Dampening parameters
10. TCP MD5
11. Maximum TCP Window Size
12. MTU
The basic-test settings for the parameters should be:
1. Interface failure detection timer (0 ms)
2. BGP Keepalive timer (1 min)
3. BGP Holdtime (3 min)
4. BGP update delay timer (0 s)
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
5. ConnectRetry timer (1 s)
6. TCP Segment Size (4096)
7. Minimum Route Advertisement Interval (MRAI) (0 s)
8. MinASOriginationInterval (MAOI)(0 s)
9. Route Flap Dampening parameters (off)
10. TCP MD5 (off)
4.5. Interface Types
The type of media dictate which test cases may be executed, each
interface type has unique mechanism for detecting link failures and
the speed at which that mechanism operates will influence the
measurement results. All interfaces MUST be of the same media and
throughput for all iterations of each test case.
4.6. Measurement Accuracy
Since observed packet loss is used to measure the route convergence
time, the time between two successive packets offered to each
individual route is the highest possible accuracy of any packet-loss
based measurement. When packet jitter is much less than the
convergence time, it is a negligible source of error and hence it
will be treated as within tolerance.
Other options to measure convergence are the Time-Based Loss Method
(TBLM) and Timestamp Based Method(TBM)[MPLSProt].
An exterior measurement on the input media (such as Ethernet) is
defined by this specification.
4.7. Measurement Statistics
The benchmark measurements may vary for each trial, due to the
statistical nature of timer expirations, CPU scheduling, etc. It is
recommended to repeat the test multiple times. Evaluation of the
test data must be done with an understanding of generally accepted
testing practices regarding repeatability, variance and statistical
significance of a small number of trials.
For any repeated tests that are averaged to remove variance, all
parameters MUST remain the same.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
4.8. Authentication
Authentication in BGP is done using the TCP MD5 Signature Option
[RFC5925]. The processing of the MD5 hash, particularly in devices
with a large number of BGP peers and a large amount of update
traffic, can have an impact on the control plane of the device. If
authentication is enabled, it MUST be documented correctly in the
reporting format.
Also it is recommended that trials MUST be with the same SIDR
features (RFC7115 & BGPSec). The best convergence tests would be
with No SIDR features, and then with the same SIDR features.
4.9. Convergence Events
Convergence events or triggers are defined as abnormal occurrences in
the network, which initiate route flapping in the network, and hence
forces the re-convergence of a steady state network. In a real
network, a series of convergence events may cause convergence latency
operators desire to test.
These convergence events must be defined in terms of the sequences
defined in RFC 4098. This basic document begins all tests with a
router initial set-up. Additional documents will define BGP data
plane convergence based on peer initialization.
The convergence events may or may not be tied to the actual failure A
Soft Reset (RFC 4098) does not clear the RIB or FIB tables. A Hard
reset clears the BGP peer sessions, the RIB tables, and FIB tables.
4.10. High Availability
Due to the different Non-Stop-Routing (sometimes referred to High-
Availability) solutions available from different vendors, it is
RECOMMENDED that any redundancy available in the routing processors
should be disabled during the convergence measurements. For cases
where the redundancy cannot be disabled, the results are no longer
comparable and the level of impacts on the measurements is out of
scope of this document.
5. Test Cases
All tests defined under this section assume the following:
a. BGP peers are in established state
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
b. BGP state should be cleared from established state to idle prior
to each test. This is recommended to ensure that all tests start
with the BGP peers being forced back to idle state and databases
flushed.
c. Furthermore the traffic generation and routing should be verified
in the topology to ensure there is no packet loss observed on any
advertised routes
d. The arrival timestamp of advertised routes can be measured by
installing an inline monitoring device between the emulator and
DUT, or by the span port of DUT connected with an external
analyzer. The time base of such inline monitor or external
analyzer needs to be synchronized with the protocol and traffic
emulator. Some modern emulator may have the capability to
capture and timestamp every NLRI packets leaving and arriving at
the emulator ports. The timestamps of these NLRI packets will be
almost identical to the arrival time at DUT if the cable distance
between the emulator and DUT is relatively short.
5.1. Basic Convergence Tests
These test cases measure characteristics of a BGP implementation in
non-failure scenarios like:
1. RIB-IN Convergence
2. RIB-OUT Convergence
3. eBGP Convergence
4. iBGP Convergence
5.1.1. RIB-IN Convergence
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken to receive and
install a route in RIB using BGP.
Reference Test Setup:
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1
Procedure:
A. All variables affecting Convergence should be set to a basic
test state (as defined in section 4-4).
B. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and one peer of Emulator,
Emp1.
C. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
D. Start the traffic from the Emulator tx towards the DUT
targeted at a routes specified in route mixture (ex. routeA)
Initially no traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress
interface as the routeA is not installed in the forwarding
database of the DUT.
E. Advertise routeA from the peer(Emp1) to the DUT and record the
time.
This is Tup(EMp1,Rt-A) also named 'XMT-Rt-time(Rt-A)'.
F. Record the time when the routeA from Emp1 is received at the
DUT.
This Tup(DUT,Rt-A) also named 'RCV-Rt-time(Rt-A)'.
G. Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
received by Emulator on appropriate traffic egress interface.
This is TR(TDr,Rt-A). This is also named DUT-XMT-Data-
Time(Rt-A).
H. The difference between the Tup(DUT,RT-A) and traffic received
time (TR (TDr, Rt-A) is the FIB Convergence Time for routeA in
the route mixture. A full convergence for the route update is
the measurement between the 1st route (Rt-A) and the last
route (Rt-last)
Route update convergence is
TR(TDr, Rt-last)- Tup(DUT, Rt-A) or
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
(DUT-XMT-Data-Time - RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)
Note: It is recommended that a single test with the same route
mixture be repeated several times. A report should provide the
Standard Deviation of all tests and the Average.
Running tests with a varying number of routes and route mixtures is
important to get a full characterization of a single peer.
5.1.2. RIB-OUT Convergence
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
to receive, install and advertise a route using BGP.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.
Procedure:
A. The Helper node (HLP) MUST run same version of BGP as DUT.
B. All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
C. All configuration variables for HLP, DUT and Emulator SHOULD
be set to the same values. These values MAY be basic-test or
a unique set completely described in the test set-up.
D. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.
E. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.
F. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
G. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node
targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially no
traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress interface as the
routeA is not installed in the forwarding database of the DUT.
H. Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT and note the
time.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
This is Tup(EMx, Rt-A), also named EM-XMT-Data-Time(Rt-A)
I. Record when routeA is received by DUT.
This is Tup(DUTr, Rt-A), also named DUT-RCV-Rt-Time(Rt-A)
J. Record the time when the routeA is forwarded by DUT towards
the Helper node.
This is Tup(DUTx, Rt-A), also named DUT-XMT-Rt-Time(Rt-A)
K. Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
received on the Route Egress Interface. This is TR(EMr,
Rt-A), also named DUT-XMT-Data Time(Rt-A).
FIB convergence = (DUT-XMT-Data-Time
-DUT-RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)
RIB convergence = (DUT-XMT-Rt-Time - DUT-RCV-Rt-Time)(Rt-A)
Convergence for a route stream is characterized by
a) Individual route convergence for FIB, RIB
b) All route convergence of
FIB-convergence = DUT-XMT-Data-Time(last) - DUT-RCV-Rt-
Time(first)
RIB-convergence = DUT-XMT-Rt-Time(last) - DUT-RCV-Rt-
Time(first)
5.1.3. eBGP Convergence
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
to receive, install and advertise a route in an eBGP Scenario.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2 and the scenarios
described in RIB-IN and RIB-OUT are applicable to this test case.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
5.1.4. iBGP Convergence
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
to receive, install and advertise a route in an iBGP Scenario.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2 and the scenarios
described in RIB-IN and RIB-OUT are applicable to this test case.
5.1.5. eBGP Multihop Convergence
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
to receive, install and advertise a route in an eBGP Multihop
Scenario.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 3. DUT is used along
with a helper node.
Procedure:
A. The Helper Node (HLP) MUST run the same version of BGP as DUT.
B. All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
C. All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
policies, timers SHOULD be set to basic-settings
D. All 3 devices, DUT, Emulator and Helper Node are configured
with different Autonomous Systems.
E. Loopback Interfaces are configured on DUT and Helper Node and
connectivity is established between them using any config
options available on the DUT.
F. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.
G. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
H. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test
I. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
at a specific route (e.g. routeA).
J. Initially no traffic SHOULD be observed on the egress
interface as the routeA is not installed in the forwarding
database of the DUT.
K. Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT and note the
time (Tup(EMx,RouteA) also named Route-Tx-time(Rt-A).
L. Record the time when the route is received by the DUT. This
is Tup(EMr,DUT) named Route-Rcv-time(Rt-A).
M. Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
received from Egress Interface of DUT on emulator. This is
Tup(EMd,DUT) named Data-Rcv-time(Rt-A)
N. Record the time when the routeA is forwarded by DUT towards
the Helper node. This is Tup(EMf,DUT) also named Route-Fwd-
time(Rt-A)
FIB Convergence = (Data-Rcv-time - Route-Rcv-time)(Rt-A)
RIB Convergence = (Route-Fwd-time - Route-Rcv-time)(Rt-A)
Note: It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying number
of routes and route mixtures. With each set route mixture, the test
should be repeated multiple times. The results should record
average, mean, Standard Deviation
5.2. BGP Failure/Convergence Events
5.2.1. Physical Link Failure on DUT End
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
failure event at DUT's Local Interface.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1. Shutdown event is
defined as an administrative shutdown event on the DUT.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Procedure:
A. All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
policies, timers should be set to basic-test policy.
B. Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
peer interface and the other using a second peer interface.
C. Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
(Emp1) Interface to be the preferred next hop.
D. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
E. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
at a specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially traffic would be
observed on the best egress route (Emp1) instead of Emp2.
F. Trigger the shutdown event of Best Egress Interface on DUT
(Dp1). This time is called Shutdown time
G. Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface (Dp2)
Time = Data-detect(Emp2) - Shutdown time
H. Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain.
Restart the data flow.
I. Bring up the link on DUT Best Egress Interface.
J. Measure the convergence time taken for the traffic to be
rerouted from (Dp2) to Best Interface (Dp1)
Time = Data-detect(Emp1) - Bring Up time
K. It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying
number of routes and route mixtures or with number of routes &
route mixtures closer to what is deployed in operational
networks.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
5.2.2. Physical Link Failure on Remote/Emulator End
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
failure event at Tester's Local Interface.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1. Shutdown event is
defined as shutdown of the local interface of Tester via logical
shutdown event. The procedure used in 5.2.1 is used for the
termination.
5.2.3. ECMP Link Failure on DUT End
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time due to local link
failure event at ECMP Member. The FIB configuration and BGP is
set to allow two ECMP routes to be installed. However, policy
directs the routes to be sent only over one of the paths
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1 and the procedure
uses 5.2.1.
5.3. BGP Adjacency Failure (Non-Physical Link Failure) on Emulator
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time due to BGP Adjacency
Failure on Emulator.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.
Procedure:
A. All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
policies, timers should be basic-policy set.
B. Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
Best Egress Interface and the other using the Next-Best Egress
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Interface.
C. Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
make Best Egress Interface to be the preferred next hop
D. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
E. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
at a specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially traffic would be
observed on the Best Egress interface.
F. Remove BGP adjacency via a software adjacency down on the
Emulator on the Best Egress Interface. This time is called
BGPadj-down-time also termed BGPpeer-down
G. Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface. This
time is Tr-rr2 also called TR2-traffic-on
Convergence = TR2-traffic-on - BGPpeer-down
H. Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
Restart the data flow.
I. Bring up BGP adjacency on the Emulator over the Best Egress
Interface. This time is BGP-adj-up also called BGPpeer-up
J. Measure the convergence time taken for the traffic to be
rerouted to Best Interface. This time is Tr-rr1 also called
TR1-traffic-on
Convergence = TR1-traffic-on - BGPpeer-up
5.4. BGP Hard Reset Test Cases
5.4.1. BGP Non-Recovering Hard Reset Event on DUT
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time due to Hard Reset on
the DUT.
Reference Test Setup:
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.
Procedure:
A. The requirement for this test case is that the Hard Reset
Event should be non-recovering and should affect only the
adjacency between DUT and Emulator on the Best Egress
Interface.
B. All variables affecting SHOULD be set to basic-test values.
C. Establish 2 BGP adjacencies from DUT to Emulator, one over the
Best Egress Interface and the other using the Next-Best Egress
Interface.
D. Advertise the same route, routeA over both the adjacencies and
make Best Egress Interface to be the preferred next hop.
E. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
F. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
at a specific route (e.g routeA). Initially traffic would be
observed on the Best Egress interface.
G. Trigger the Hard Reset event of Best Egress Interface on DUT.
This time is called time-reset
H. This event is detected and traffic is forwarded to the Next-
Best Egress Interface. This tim e called time-traffic flow.
I. Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface.
Time of convergence = time-traffic flow - time-reset
J. Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
Restart.
K. It is recommended that the test be repeated with varying
number of routes and route mixtures or with number of routes &
route mixtures closer to what is deployed in operational
networks.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
L. When varying number of routes are used, convergence Time is
measured using the Loss Derived method [IGPData].
M. Convergence Time in this scenario is influenced by Failure
detection time on Tester, BGP Keep Alive Time and routing,
forwarding table update time.
5.5. BGP Soft Reset
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
implementation to service a BGP Route Refresh message and
advertise a route.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.
Procedure:
A. The BGP implementation on DUT & Helper Node needs to support
BGP Route Refresh Capability [RFC2918].
B. All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
C. All variables affecting Convergence like authentication,
policies, timers should be set to basic-test defaults.
D. DUT and Helper Node are configured in the same Autonomous
System whereas Emulator is configured under a different
Autonomous System.
E. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.
F. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Node.
G. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
H. Configure a policy under BGP on Helper Node to deny routes
received from DUT.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
I. Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT.
J. The DUT will try to advertise the route to Helper Node will be
denied.
K. Wait for 3 KeepAlives.
L. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node
targeted at a specific route say routeA. Initially no traffic
would be observed on the Egress interface, as routeA is not
present.
M. Remove the policy on Helper Node and issue a Route Refresh
request towards DUT. Note the timestamp of this event. This
is the RefreshTime.
N. Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
received on the Egress Interface. This is RecTime.
O. The following equation represents the Route Refresh
Convergence Time per route.
Route Refresh Convergence Time = (RecTime - RefreshTime)
5.6. BGP Route Withdrawal Convergence Time
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
implementation to service a BGP Withdraw message and advertise the
withdraw.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 2.
Procedure:
A. This test consists of 2 steps to determine the Total Withdraw
Processing Time.
B. Step 1:
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
(1) All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
(2) All variables should be set to basic-test parameters.
(3) DUT and Helper Node are configured in the same
Autonomous System whereas Emulator is configured under a
different Autonomous System.
(4) Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Emulator.
(5) To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives
from the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding
with the rest of the test.
(6) Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT
targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially
no traffic would be observed on the Egress interface as
the routeA is not present on DUT.
(7) Advertise routeA from the Emulator to the DUT.
(8) The traffic targeted towards routeA is received on the
Egress Interface.
(9) Now the Tester sends request to withdraw routeA to DUT,
TRx(Awith) also called WdrawTime1(Rt-A).
(10) Record the time when no traffic is observed as
determined by the Emulator. This is the
RouteRemoveTime1(Rt-A).
(11) The difference between the RouteRemoveTime1 and
WdrawTime1 is the WdrawConvTime1
WdrawConvTime1(Rt-A) = RouteRemoveTime1(Rt-A) -
WdrawTime1(Rt-A)
C. Step 2:
(1) Continuing from Step 1, re-advertise routeA back to DUT
from Tester.
(2) The DUT will try to advertise the routeA to Helper Node
(This assumes there exists a session between DUT and
helper node).
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
(3) Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper
Node targeted at a specific route (e.g. routeA). Traffic
would be observed on the Egress interface after routeA is
received by the Helper Node
WATime=time traffic first flows
(4) Now the Tester sends a request to withdraw routeA to DUT.
This is the WdrawTime2(Rt-A)
WAWtime-TRx(Rt-A) = WdrawTime2(Rt-A)
(5) DUT processes the withdraw and sends it to Helper Node.
(6) Record the time when no traffic is observed as determined
by the Emulator. This is
TR-WAW(DUT,RouteA) = RouteRemoveTime2(Rt-A)
(7) Total withdraw processing time is
TotalWdrawTime(Rt-A) = ((RouteRemoveTime2(Rt-A) -
WdrawTime2(Rt-A)) - WdrawConvTime1(Rt-A))
5.7. BGP Path Attribute Change Convergence Time
Objective:
This test measures the convergence time taken by an implementation
to service a BGP Path Attribute Change.
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 1.
Procedure:
A. This test only applies to Well-Known Mandatory Attributes like
Origin, AS Path, Next Hop.
B. In each iteration of test only one of these mandatory
attributes need to be varied whereas the others remain the
same.
C. All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
D. All variables should be set to basic-test parameters.
E. Advertise the route, routeA over the Best Egress Interface
only, making it the preferred named Tbest.
F. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
G. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the DUT targeted
at the specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially traffic would
be observed on the Best Egress interface.
H. Now advertise the same route routeA on the Next-Best Egress
Interface but by varying one of the well-known mandatory
attributes to have a preferred value over that interface. We
call this Tbetter. The other values need to be same as what
was advertised on the Best-Egress adjacency
TRx(Path-Change(Rt-A)) = Path Change Event Time(Rt-A)
I. Measure the Convergence Time for the event to be detected and
traffic to be forwarded to Next-Best Egress Interface
DUT(Path-Change, Rt-A) = Path-switch time(Rt-A)
Convergence = Path-switch time(Rt-A) - Path Change Event
Time(Rt-A)
J. Stop the offered load and wait for the queues to drain and
Restart.
K. Repeat the test for various attributes.
5.8. BGP Graceful Restart Convergence Time
Objective:
This test measures the route convergence time taken by an
implementation during a Graceful Restart Event as detailed in the
Terminology document [RFC4098].
Reference Test Setup:
This test uses the setup as shown in figure 4.
Procedure:
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
A. It measures the time taken by an implementation to service a
BGP Graceful Restart Event and advertise a route.
B. The Helper Nodes are the same model as DUT and run the same
BGP implementation as DUT.
C. The BGP implementation on DUT & Helper Node needs to support
BGP Graceful Restart Mechanism [RFC4724].
D. All devices MUST be synchronized using NTP or some local
reference clock.
E. All variables are set to basic-test values.
F. DUT and Helper Node-1(HLP1) are configured in the same
Autonomous System whereas Emulator and Helper Node-2(HLP2) are
configured under different Autonomous Systems.
G. Establish BGP adjacency between DUT and Helper Nodes.
H. Establish BGP adjacency between Helper Node-2 and Emulator.
I. To ensure adjacency establishment, wait for 3 KeepAlives from
the DUT or a configurable delay before proceeding with the
rest of the test.
J. Configure a policy under BGP on Helper Node-1 to deny routes
received from DUT.
K. Advertise routeA from the Emulator to Helper Node-2.
L. Helper Node-2 advertises the route to DUT and DUT will try to
advertise the route to Helper Node-1 which will be denied.
M. Wait for 3 KeepAlives.
N. Start the traffic from the Emulator towards the Helper Node-1
targeted at the specific route (e.g. routeA). Initially no
traffic would be observed on the Egress interface as the
routeA is not present.
O. Perform a Graceful Restart Trigger Event on DUT and note the
time. This is the GREventTime.
P. Remove the policy on Helper Node-1.
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Q. Record the time when the traffic targeted towards routeA is
received on the Egress Interface
TRr(DUT, routeA). This is also called RecTime(Rt-A)
R. The following equation represents the Graceful Restart
Convergence Time
Graceful Restart Convergence Time(Rt-A) = ((RecTime(Rt-A) -
GREventTime) - RIB-IN)
S. It is assumed in this test case that after a Switchover is
triggered on the DUT, it will not have any cycles to process
BGP Refresh messages. The reason for this assumption is that
there is a narrow window of time where after switchover when
we remove the policy from Helper Node-1, implementations might
generate Route-Refresh automatically and this request might be
serviced before the DUT actually switches over and
reestablishes BGP adjacencies with the peers.
6. Reporting Format
For each test case, it is recommended that the reporting tables below
are completed and all time values SHOULD be reported with resolution
as specified in [RFC4098].
Parameter Units
Test case Test case number
Test topology 1,2,3 or 4
Parallel links Number of parallel links
Interface type GigE, POS, ATM, other
Convergence Event Hard reset, Soft reset, link
failure, or other defined
eBGP sessions Number of eBGP sessions
iBGP sessions Number of iBGP sessions
eBGP neighbor Number of eBGP neighbors
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
iBGP neighbor Number of iBGP neighbors
Routes per peer Number of routes
Total unique routes Number of routes
Total non-unique routes Number of routes
IGP configured ISIS, OSPF, static, or other
Route Mixture Description of Route mixture
Route Packing Number of routes in an update
Policy configured Yes, No
SIDR Origin Authentication Yes, No
[RFC7115]
bgp-sec [BGPSec] Yes, No
Packet size offered to the DUT Bytes
Offered load Packets per second
Packet sampling interval on Seconds
tester
Forwarding delay threshold Seconds
Timer Values configured on DUT
Interface failure indication Seconds
delay
Hold time Seconds
MinRouteAdvertisementInterval Seconds
(MRAI)
MinASOriginationInterval Seconds
(MAOI)
Keepalive Time Seconds
ConnectRetry Seconds
TCP Parameters for DUT and tester
MSS Bytes
Slow start threshold Bytes
Maximum window size Bytes
Test Details:
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
a. If the Offered Load matches a subset of routes, describe how this
subset is selected.
b. Describe how the Convergence Event is applied, does it cause
instantaneous traffic loss or not.
c. If there is any policy configured, describe the configured
policy.
Complete the table below for the initial Convergence Event and the
reversion Convergence Event
Parameter Unit
Convergence Event Initial or reversion
Traffic Forwarding Metrics
Total number of packets Number of packets
offered to DUT
Total number of packets Number of packets
forwarded by DUT
Connectivity Packet Loss Number of packets
Convergence Packet Loss Number of packets
Out-of-order packets Number of packets
Duplicate packets Number of packets
Convergence Benchmarks
Rate-derived Method[RFC
6412]:
First route convergence Seconds
time
Full convergence time Seconds
Loss-derived Method [RFC
6412]:
Loss-derived convergence Seconds
time
Route-Specific Loss-Derived
Method:
Minimum R-S convergence Seconds
time
Maximum R-S convergence Seconds
time
Median R-S convergence Seconds
time
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Average R-S convergence Seconds
time
Loss of Connectivity Benchmarks
Loss-derived Method:
Loss-derived loss of Seconds
connectivity period
Route-Specific loss-derived
Method:
Minimum LoC period [n] Array of seconds
Minimum Route LoC period Seconds
Maximum Route LoC period Seconds
Median Route LoC period Seconds
Average Route LoC period Seconds
7. IANA Considerations
This draft does not require any new allocations by IANA.
8. 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.
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anil Tandon, Arvind Pandey, Mohan Nanduri, Jay
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Karthik, Eric Brendel for their input and discussions on various
sections in the document. We also like to acknowledge Will Liu,
Semion Lisyansky, Faisal Shah for their review and feedback to the
document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol]
Lepinski, M., "BGPSEC Protocol Specification",
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-09 (work in progress),
July 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2918] Chen, E., "Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 2918,
September 2000.
[RFC4098] Berkowitz, H., Davies, E., Hares, S., Krishnaswamy, P.,
and M. Lepp, "Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device
Convergence in the Control Plane", RFC 4098, June 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
Convergence", RFC 6412, November 2011.
[RFC7115] Bush, R., "Origin Validation Operation Based on the
Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)", BCP 185,
RFC 7115, January 2014.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network
interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC1983] Malkin, G., "Internet Users' Glossary", RFC 1983,
August 1996.
[RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, February 1998.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft BGP Convergence Methodology January 2015
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
March 1999.
[RFC4724] Sangli, S., Chen, E., Fernando, R., Scudder, J., and Y.
Rekhter, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP", RFC 4724,
January 2007.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Rajiv Papneja
Huawei Technologies
Email: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com
Bhavani Parise
Cisco Systems
Email: bhavani@cisco.com
Susan Hares
Huawei Technologies
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Dean Lee
IXIA
Email: dlee@ixiacom.com
Ilya Varlashkin
Google
Email: ilya@nobulus.com
Papneja, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 34]
