1 Scott Poretsky, Quarry Technologies Shankar Rao, Qwest Communications Jean-Louis Le Roux, France Telecom Rajiv Papneja, Isocore Rajesh Khanna, Avici Systems 61st IETF Meeting – Washington D.C Benchmarking Protection Mechanisms

2 Work Item Documents METHODOLOGY –Purpose to benchmark Protection extensions to MPLS-TE Mechanisms = Fast Reroute, Standby LSP, Headend Reroute Measure Data Plane to calculate Failover Time Compare: –One Mechanism versus another –Vendor versus Vendor for given Mechanism –Use existing MPLS terminology wherever possible TERMINOLOGY (Different authors, separate submission) –Purpose to create a terminology that could be applied to develop methodologies to benchmark all networking protection mechanisms (SONET, Ethernet, MPLS) –Draft has expired –Driver for terms was SONET –Some Terms were inconsistent with MPLS Methodology, but some had strong value

3 Status Terminology For Protection Benchmarking draft-kimura- protection-term-01.txt Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking draft-ietf-poretsky-mpls- protection-meth-03.txt Created single work item with common terminology Received numerous comments for additional test cases and benchmarking metrics Terminology For Protection Benchmarking draft-poretsky-protection- term-00.txt? Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking draft-ietf-poretsky-mpls- protection-meth-04.txt?

4 Methodology Comments 1.Add test cases to cover  BGP over MPLS-TE  IGP over MPLS-TE  LDP over MPLS-TE 2.Add note that same link speeds must be used 3.Benchmark for number of LSP Failover and LSP Reversion should be measured at time intervals (45msec, 100msec, 1 sec)  Still some contention over units being LSPs or % of LSPS 4.Add explanation of test equipment emulating numerous roles for a Protected LSP Thanks to Ina, Der-Hwa, Arti, and Safaa at Juniper for their thorough reviews

5 How to Proceed? Is this of interest to BMWG to be adopted as work item? Update Terminology with new terms (rev –02?) Update Methodology with new terms and comments (rev –04?)

6 Recommended Terms (1 of 2) FRR MethodologyProtection TerminologyNew Proposed Terms Bypass Tunnel Dynamic Backup Path Backup Path Recovery SpanBackup Span Backup LSPRecovery PathBackup Path Detour LSP Recovery Path/Recovery SpanDynamic Backup Path EgressPrimary Path Egress FailoverFailure DetectionFailure Detection Failover TimeRecovery TimeFailover Time Fast RerouteProtection SystemProtection System Global Reversion None Headend RerouteNone IngressPrimary Path Ingress Link ProtectionProtection SwitchingLink Protection Link FailurePath FailurePath Failure LSPPathPath LSRProtection-Capable NodeProtection-Switching Node

7 FRR MethodologyProtection TerminologyNew Proposed Terms Local RepairLocal Backup Span Make-Before-BreakMake-Before Break Mid-PointNon-Protection Switching Node Merge PointProtection-Capable NodeMerge Node Node ProtectionNode Protection One-to-one BackupPath Protection PLRProtection-Capable NodeFailover Node Protected LSP Ordinary PathProtected Primary Path Primary LSPPrimary Path ReversionReversion RerouteSwitch-OverFailover Standby LSPStandby Backup Path Working PathWorking Path Recommended Terms (2 of 2)