Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
Benchmarking Working Group M. Georgescu
Internet Draft L. Pislaru
Intended status: Informational RCS&RDS
Expires: December 2017 G. Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
June 12, 2017
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-08.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. More specifically,
this document targets IPv6 transition technologies that employ
encapsulation or translation mechanisms, as dual-stack nodes can be
very well tested using the recommendations of RFC2544 and RFC5180.
The methodology also includes a metric for benchmarking load
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 December 12, 2016.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies..............................4
2. Conventions used in this document..............................6
3. Terminology....................................................6
4. Test Setup.....................................................6
4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies................7
4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies..7
5. Test Traffic...................................................8
5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes...................................8
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet.................9
5.2. Protocol Addresses........................................9
5.3. Traffic Setup.............................................9
6. Modifiers.....................................................10
7. Benchmarking Tests............................................10
7.1. Throughput...............................................11
Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified........................11
7.2. Latency..................................................11
7.3. Packet Delay Variation...................................12
7.3.1. PDV.................................................12
7.3.2. IPDV................................................13
7.4. Frame Loss Rate..........................................14
7.5. Back-to-back Frames......................................14
7.6. System Recovery..........................................14
7.7. Reset....................................................14
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
Technologies.....................................................14
8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity.......................14
8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate................14
9. DNS Resolution Performance....................................14
9.1. Test and Traffic Setup...................................14
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance..................16
9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester.........................17
10. Overload Scalability.........................................18
10.1. Test Setup..............................................18
10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies.........18
10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition
Technologies...............................................19
10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation....................19
10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load
...........................................................19
10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load
...........................................................20
11. NAT44 and NAT66..............................................21
12. Summarizing function and variation...........................21
13. Security Considerations......................................22
14. IANA Considerations..........................................22
15. References...................................................22
15.1. Normative References....................................22
15.2. Informative References..................................23
16. Acknowledgements.............................................26
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates......................27
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.
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.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when
operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a
system's ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows
than the maximum number of flows which the Device under test (DUT)
can operate normally. The approach taken here is to quantify the
overload scalability by measuring the performance created by an
excessive number of network flows, and comparing performance to the
non-overloaded case.
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. In this context, a generic classification of the
transition technologies can prove useful.
We can consider a production network transitioning to IPv6 as being
constructed using the following IP domains:
o Domain A: IPvX specific domain
o Core domain: which may be IPvY specific or dual-stack(IPvX and
IPvY)
o Domain B: IPvX specific domain
Note: X,Y are part of the set {4,6}, and X NOT.EQUAL Y.
According to the technology used for the core domain traversal the
transition technologies can be categorized as follows:
1. Dual-stack: the core domain devices implement both IP protocols.
2. Single Translation: In this case, the production network is
assumed to have only two domains, Domain A and the Core domain.
The core domain is assumed to be IPvY specific. IPvX packets are
translated to IPvY at the edge between Domain A and the Core
domain.
3. Double translation: The production network is assumed to have all
three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
domain is IPvY specific. A translation mechanism is employed for
the traversal of the core network. The IPvX packets are
translated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the
Core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are translated back
to IPvX at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all
three domains; Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core
domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to
traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to
IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain.
Subsequently, the IPvY packets are de-encapsulated at the edge
between the Core domain and Domain B.
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 translation, Encapsulation and Double
translation 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.
Table 1 contains the generic categories as well as associations with
some of the IPv6 transition technologies proposed in the IETF.
Please note that the list is not exhaustive.
Table 1. IPv6 Transition Technologies Categories
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| | Generic category | IPv6 Transition Technology |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Dual-stack | Dual IP Layer Operations [RFC4213] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Single translation | NAT64 [RFC6146], IVI [RFC6219] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Double translation | 464XLAT [RFC6877], MAP-T [RFC7599] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 4 | Encapsulation | DSLite[RFC6333], MAP-E [RFC7597] |
| | | Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596] |
| | | 6RD [RFC5569], 6PE [RFC4798], 6VPE |
| | | 6VPE [RFC4659] |
+---+--------------------+------------------------------------+
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
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.
Although these terms are usually associated with protocol
requirements, in this document the terms are requirements for users
and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim
conformance with this specification.
3. Terminology
A number of terms used in this memo have been defined in other RFCs.
Please refer to those RFCs for definitions, testing procedures and
reporting formats.
Throughput (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Frame Loss Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Back-to-back Frames (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
System Recovery (Benchmark) - [RFC2544]
Reset (Benchmark) - [RFC6201]
Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]
Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate (Benchmark) - [RFC3511]
4. 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] and [RFC5180] can be applied here as well.
However, the Device under test (DUT) setup options should be
explained in the context of the targeted categories of IPv6
transition technologies: Single translation, Double translation and
Encapsulation transition technologies.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
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. Moreover, the "Trial description"
recommendations presented in [RFC2544] (Section 23) are also valid
for this memo.
In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing
protocols are used..
4.1. Single translation Transition Technologies
For the evaluation of Single translation 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|--------------+
| |
+--------------------+
Figure 1. Test setup 1
4.2. Encapsulation/Double translation Transition Technologies
For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double
translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2)
SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX
packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or
translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are
de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT
and forwarded to the tester.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
+--------------------+
| |
+---------------------|IPvX tester IPvX|<------------------+
| | | |
| +--------------------+ |
| |
| +--------------------+ +--------------------+ |
| | | | | |
+----->|IPvX DUT 1 IPvY |----->|IPvY DUT 2 IPvX |------+
| | | |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 2. Test setup 2
One of the limitations of the dual DUT setup is the inability to
reflect asymmetries in behavior between the DUTs. Considering this,
additional performance tests SHOULD be performed using the single
DUT setup.
Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single
DUT setup, in order to test the de-encapsulation efficiency, the
tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY.
5. 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.
5.1. 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 recommendations of the two documents can be used 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 instance, the
single translation 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 method for the Ethernet, as
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
well as a calculation example, are detailed in Appendix A. The
details of the media employed for the benchmarking tests MUST be
noted in all test reports.
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. To be more specific, the minimum
IPv6 MTU size (1280 bytes) plus the encapsulation/translation
overhead is the RECOMMENDED value for the physical interfaces as
well as virtual ones.
5.1.1. Frame Sizes to Be Used over Ethernet
Based on the recommendations of [RFC5180], the following frame sizes
SHOULD be used for benchmarking IPvX/IPvY traffic on Ethernet links:
64, 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1280, 1518, 1522, 2048, 4096, 8192 and
9216.
For Ethernet frames exceeding 1500 bytes in size, the [IEEE802.1AC]
standard can be consulted.
Note: for single translation transition technologies (e.g. NAT64) in
the IPv6 -> IPv4 translation direction, 64 byte frames SHOULD be
replaced by 84 byte frames. This would allow the frames to be
transported over media such as the ones described by the IEEE 802.1Q
standard. Moreover, this would also allow the implementation of a
frame identifier in the UDP data.
The theoretical maximum frame rates considering an example of frame
overhead are presented in Appendix A.
5.2. 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. Proposed
IPvX/IPvY translation algorithms such as IP/ICMP translation
[RFC7915] do not support the use of extension headers.
5.3. Traffic Setup
Following the recommendations of [RFC5180], all tests described
SHOULD be performed with bi-directional traffic. Uni-directional
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
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 7 of
this document UDP traffic SHOULD be employed.
Considering that a transition technology could process both native
IPv6 traffic and translated/encapsulated traffic, the following
traffic setups are recommended:
i) IPvX only traffic (where the IPvX traffic is to be
translated/encapsulated by the DUT)
ii) 90% IPvX traffic and 10% IPvY native traffic
iii) 50% IPvX traffic and 50% IPvY native traffic
iv) 10% IPvX traffic and 90% IPvY native traffic
For the benchmarks dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition
technologies, included in Section 8 of this memo (Concurrent TCP
Connection Capacity and Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate),
the traffic SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC3511], Sections
5.2.2.2 and 5.3.2.2.
6. 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. Section 6 of
[RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to
IPv6. Their recommendations can also be followed for IPv6 transition
technologies testing.
7. Benchmarking Tests
The following sub-sections contain the list of all recommended
benchmarking tests.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
7.1. Throughput
Use Section 26.1 of RFC2544 unmodified.
7.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the
definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a
new measurement procedure.
Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of
the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. 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 120 seconds in duration.
Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60
seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was
fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was
received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B
minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242,
namely latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency
as defined for bit forwarding devices.
We recommend to encode the identifying tag in the payload of the
frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the
UDP header.
From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, 2 quantities SHOULD be
calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated
with the following formula:
TL=Median(Li)
Where: TL - the reported typical latency of the stream
Li -the latency for tagged frame i
The other measure is the worst case latency, which SHOULD be
calculated with the following formula:
WCL=L99.9thPercentile
Where: WCL - The reported worst case latency
L99.9thPercentile - The 99.9th Percentile of the stream measured
latencies
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported
value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL.
Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency
(from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency
results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for
each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the
frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that
frame size, for the media types tested, and for the resultant
typical latency and worst case latency values for each type of data
stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th
percentiles of the 20 iterations MAY be reported in two separated
columns. For a fine grained analysis, the histogram (as exemplified
in [RFC5481] Section 4.4) of one of the iterations MAY be
displayed .
7.3. 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 grained analysis of delay
variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed.
7.3.1. 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
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=D99.9thPercentile - Dmin
Where: D99.9thPercentile - the 99.9th Percentile (as it was
described in [RFC5481]) of the One-way delay for the stream
Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream
As recommended in [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20
times with the reported value being the median of the recorded
values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated
to account for the variation of the dataset.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
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. Two
columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY be displayed.
Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of
measurement are milliseconds.
7.3.2. 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
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, Dmed, and Dmax
Where: Dmin - the minimum IPDV in the stream
Dmed - the median IPDV of the stream
Dmax - the maximum IPDV in the stream
The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20
repetitions, for each of the 3 (Dmin, Dmed and Dmax) the median
value SHOULD be reported.
Reporting format: The median for 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. Following the
recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement
are milliseconds.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
7.4. Frame Loss Rate
Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.5. Back-to-back Frames
Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.6. System Recovery
Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified.
7.7. Reset
Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified.
8. 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 5.2 and
5.3)
The following additional tests SHOULD be performed.
8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity
Use Section 5.2 of [RFC3511] unmodified.
8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate
Use Section 5.3 of RFC3511 unmodified.
9. DNS Resolution Performance
This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see
[RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single translation technologies
such as NAT64.
9.1. Test and Traffic Setup
The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single
translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
1:AAAA query +--------------------+
+------------| |<-------------+
| |IPv6 Tester IPv4| |
| +-------->| |----------+ |
| | +--------------------+ 3:empty | |
| | 6:synt'd AAAA, | |
| | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| |
| +---------| |<---------+ |
| |IPv6 DUT IPv4| |
+----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+
+--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query
Figure 3. DNS64 test setup
The test traffic SHOULD follow the following steps.
1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64
server)
2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64
server to authoritative DNS server)
3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
server)
4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server
to authoritative DNS server)
5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64
server)
6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client)
The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS
server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or
alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used.
Please note that:
- If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache
hit, then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5
are omitted).
- If the domain name has an AAAA record, then it is returned in
step 3 by the authoritative DNS server; steps 4 and 5 are
omitted, and the DNS64 server does not synthesizes an AAAA
record, but returns the received AAAA record to the client.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
- As for the IP version used between the tester and the DUT, IPv6
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a
DNS64 server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but
either IPv4 or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and
the authoritative DNS server.
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance
Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum
number of successfully processed DNS requests per second.
Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate
to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a
predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding
query, having the default value 1 second) and valid (contains an
AAAA record) from the DUT. If the count of sent queries is equal to
the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is raised and
the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than queries were
sent, the rate of the queries is reduced and the test is rerun. The
duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds. This will
reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to
exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus
utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same
reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. For
further considerations, see [Lencse1].
The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the
fastest rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is
equal to the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment.
The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times and the median and 1st
/99th percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per second
SHOULD be calculated.
Details and parameters:
1. Caching
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names (or
domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT is
exhausted). Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%,
40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of which are cached. We note that ensuring a
record being cached requires repeating it both "late enough" after
the first query to be already resolved and be present in the cache
and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.
2. Existence of AAAA record
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names which do not
have an AAAA record and have exactly one A record.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
Then new tests MAY be executed with domain names, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%
and 100% of which have an AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal, thus all
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
0% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA record is REQUIRED
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names
are cached, then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not
worth testing one by one.)
Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median
of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the
above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be
complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability
of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st
and 99th percentiles MAY be presented in a two dimensional table
where the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names
and the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two
table headings SHOULD contain these percentage values.
Alternatively, the results MAY be presented as the corresponding two
dimensional graph, too. In this case the graph SHOULD show the
median values with the percentiles as error bars. From both the
table and the graph, one dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any
given fixed percentage value of the other dimension. In this case,
the fixed value MUST be given together with a one dimensional table
or graph.
9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester
Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per
second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order
to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester
itself influences the results. For performing a self-test, the
tester is looped back (leaving out DUT) and its authoritative DNS
server subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA
record queries. For passing the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able
to answer AAAA record queries at 2*(r+delta) rate within 0.25*t
timeout, where the value of delta is at least 0.1.
Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query
may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT, the first one of
them is for an AAAA record and the second one is for an A record
(the are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA
record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the
authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the
queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of
the timeout time.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++, is available
from [Dns64perf] and it is documented in [Lencse2]. It implements
only the client part of the Tester and it should be used together
with an authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g. BIND, NSD or
YADIFA. Its experimental extension for testing caching is available
from [Lencse3] and it is documented in [Lencse4].
10. Overload Scalability
Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of
network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not
yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload
scalability as the ability of each transition technology to
accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor
performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured
by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with
an increased number of network flows.
The following subsections describe how the test setups can be
modified to create network growth and how the associated performance
degradation can be quantified.
10.1. Test Setup
The test setups defined in Section 3 have to be modified to create
network growth.
10.1.1. Single Translation Transition Technologies
In the case of single translation transition technologies the
network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network
flows generated by the tester machine (see Figure 4).
+-------------------------+
+------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+
| +---------|NF2 tester NF2|<----------+ |
| | ...| | | |
| | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | |
| | ...| DUT | | |
| +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ |
+----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+
+-------------------------+
Figure 4. Test setup 3
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
10.1.2. Encapsulation/Double Translation Transition Technologies
Similarly, for the encapsulation/double translation technologies a
multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point
scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is
designed to support more than one connecting devices. Hence, the
recommended test setup is a n:1 design, where n is the number of
client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (See Figure 5).
+-------------------------+
+--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+
| +-----------------|NF2 tester NF2|<-----------+ |
| | ...| | | |
| | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | |
| | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | |
| | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | |
| | +-----------------+ | | | |
| | ... | | | |
| | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | |
| +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ |
| +-----------------+ | | |
| +-----------------+ | | |
+---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+
+-----------------+ +---------------+
Figure 5. Test setup 4
This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server
device. However, for testing the overload scalability of the client
DUTs additional recommendations are needed.
For encapsulation transition technologies, a m:n setup can be
created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client
device and n the number of client devices connected to the same
server device.
For the translation based transition technologies, the client
devices can be separately tested with n network flows using the test
setup presented in Figure 4.
10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation
10.2.1. Network performance degradation with simultaneous load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel and simultaneous network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
to be performed for one network flow.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
network flows are started simultaneously. The performance
degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as
relative performance change between the 1-flow (single 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
This formula SHOULD be applied only for lower is better benchmarks
(e.g. latency).
For higher is better benchmarks (e.g. throughput), the following
formula is RECOMMENDED.
X1 - Xn
Xpd= ----------- * 100, where: X1 - result for 1-flow
X1 Xn - result for n-flows
As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be
deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as
described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by
Section 4.
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. In the case of benchmarks
for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2),
a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.
10.2.2. Network performance degradation with incremental load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n
parallel and incrementally started network flows.
Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have
to be performed for one network flow.
The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the
network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after
time t. In other words, if flow i is started at time x, flow i+1
will be started at time x+t. Considering the time t, the time
duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary
to start all the flows, namely (n-1)xt. The measurement for the
first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
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 formula presented in
Section 10.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 1/4*n, 1/2*n and
3/4*n MAY also be performed.
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 and time duration T, used
as increment step between the network flows. The units of
measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the intermediary
degradation points MAY also be displayed. In the case of benchmarks
for which more than one value is reported (e.g. IPDV Section 7.3.2),
a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.
11. NAT44 and NAT66
Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this
document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single
translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed
to benchmark NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior
described by [RFC7857]) implementations and NAT66 (as defined by
[RFC6296]) implementations.
12. Summarizing function and variation
To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using
the tests presented in Sections 7 through 9, multiple test
iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure
of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare
the results obtained across different iterations. However, over-
summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number.
Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter
the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the
proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing
function would fit better.
To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as
suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as
variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The
median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the
recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
For a fine grained analysis of the frequency distribution of the
data, histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be
employed.
13. 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.
14. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/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. Thus, no action is
requested.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP performance metrics", RFC 2330, DOI
10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
[RFC2544] Bradner, S., and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI
10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI
10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S. and T. Martin,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC
3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3511>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A., and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F. and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization ", RFC 6201, DOI
10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
15.2. Informative References
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P., and M. Holdrege. "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC2663,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2663>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI
10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/4659>.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569,
January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI
10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6219>.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M., and F. Baker. "IPv6-to-IPv6 network prefix
translation." RFC6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC
6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC6890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI
10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S.,
and K. Naito "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT)
Behavioral Requirements" RFC 7857, DOI 10.17487/RFC7857,
April 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>.
[RFC7915] LBao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI
10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
[Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester",
available: https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp
[ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6
Transition Technologies", IETF 95, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, April 2016, available:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-bmwg-
2.pdf
[Lencse1] Lencse, G., Georgescu, M. and Y. Kadobayashi,
"Benchmarking Methodology for DNS64 Servers", unpublished,
revised version is available:
http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-2017-B-M-
DNS64-revised.pdf
[Lencse2] Lencse, G., Bakai, D, "Design and Implementation of a Test
Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE
Transactions on Communications, vol. E100-B, no. 6. pp.
948-954, (June 2017), freely available from:
http://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007
[Lencse3] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
[Lencse4] Lencse, G., "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the
Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review
version is available:
http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/IEICE-2016-
dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf
[IEEE802.1AC-2016] IEEE Standard, "802.1AC-2016 - IEEE Standard for
Local and metropolitan area networks -- Media Access
Control (MAC) Service Definition", 2016, available:
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC-
2016.html
16. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki
Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should
be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous
support. The thank you list should also include Emanuel Popa, Ionut
Spirlea and the RCS&RDS IP/MPLS Backbone Team for their support and
insights. We would also like to thank Scott Bradner for the useful
suggestions. We also note that portions of text from Scott's
documents were used in this memo (e.g. Latency section). A big thank
you to Al Morton and Fred Baker for their detailed review of the
draft and very helpful suggestions. Other helpful comments and
suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew
McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka
Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis, Bela Almasi, Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich
and Stenio Fernandes. 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 December 12, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates
This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the
theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as
example media. The formula takes 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.
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 |
| 678 | 1,740 | 17,409 | 174,094 | 1,740,947 |
| 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 December 12, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv6 transition tech benchmarking June 2017
Authors' Addresses
Marius Georgescu
RCS&RDS
Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75
Bucharest 030167
Romania
Phone: +40 31 005 0979
Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro
Liviu Pislaru
RCS&RDS
Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75
Bucharest 030167
Romania
Phone: +40 31 005 0979
Email: liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro
Gabor Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
Egyetem ter 1.
Gyor
Hungary
Phone: +36 20 775 8267
Email: lencse@sze.hu
Georgescu Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 28]
