IETF BMWG FRR Related Benchmarking Drafts Status and Update Rajiv Papneja (rpapneja@isocore.com) Samir Vapiwala (svapiwala@cisco.com) Scott Poretsky (sporetsky@reefpoint.com) Jay Karthik (jkarthik@cisco.com) 65th IETF Meeting Dallas, TX Monday 3/21/05

Overview of Current Sub-IP Protection Mechanisms Benchmarking Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection Mechanisms draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt Scott Poretsky, Rajiv Papneja, Shankar Rao, Jean-Louis Le Roux Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance draft-poretsky-protection-term-01.txt Scott Poretsky, Rajiv Papneja, Takumi Kimura, Jerry Perser Methodology for benchmarking fast failover time with local protection draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt Samir Vapiwala, Jay Karthik, and Rajiv Papneja Proposed merger of draft-vapiwala and draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth (benefits to be discussed in next slide)

Background And Progress So Far Terminology For Protection Benchmarking draft-poretsky-protection-term-01.txt Terminology For Protection Benchmarking draft-poretsky-protection-term-01.txt Created single work item with common Terminology Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-03.txt Received numerous comments for additional test cases and benchmarking metrics Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt Methodology For Stateful Failover Benchmarking draft-karthik-sso-meth-00.txt (pending) Proposed Merged Draft for MPLS protection methodology [draft-papneja-bmwg-mpls-protection-meth-00.txt] (pending) – IETF 66 Methodology for benchmarking fast fail-overtime with local protection (draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt)

Two Complimentary drafts for FRR protection benchmarking New draft proposed – draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt Proposal from all the authors to merge the two drafts, if the WG agrees The new draft compliments the earlier version, as it covers the more topology and overlay technology specific scenarios not covered by the first one, but however refer to the same set of terminologies. These two drafts are not competing drafts, but complimentary drafts

Feedbacks on FRR Protection Meth Draft: So far So Good Overall there seems to be great amount of interest in this work As more and more ISPs consider deploying this feature, they are looking towards a uniform methodology and terminology across multiple FRR implementations Many comments on Traffic Generation section Requests to provide more information on failure detection times (may not be negligible) Need to describe about RSVP refresh along backup path Suggestion to add background traffic When talking of # of labels need to specify where Significance of having large number of scenarios Nits, Some more clarifications and other editorial work

Next Steps Appears to be significant interest in BMWG and in the industry to author *and review* documents for Sub-IP Protection Mechanisms Benchmarking work item This is evident from the amount of feedback received for the MPLS protection methodology drafts Is there interest to make this a BMWG work item? We as authors would like to have this decision for further motivation