1. IETF BMWG FRR Related Benchmarking Drafts Status and Update
Rajiv Papneja
Samir Vapiwala
Scott Poretsky
Jay Karthik
65th IETF Meeting
Dallas, TX
Monday 3/21/05

2. 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)

3. Background And Progress So Far
Terminology
For Protection
Benchmarking
draft-kimura-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)

4. 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 (draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt), 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

5. 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
BFD timer info missing in reporting format
Significance of having large number of scenarios
Nits, Some more clarifications and other editorial work

6. 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