|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last Update: May 26, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC1242
07/1991
(12 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
S. Bradner |
|
Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices |
|
This memo discusses and defines a number of terms that are used in
describing performance benchmarking tests and the results of such
tests. The terms defined in this memo will be used in additional
memos to define specific benchmarking tests and the suggested format
to be used in reporting the results of each of the tests.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2285
02/1998
(25 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
R. Mandeville |
|
Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices |
This document is intended to provide terminology for the benchmarking
of local area network (LAN) switching devices. It extends the
terminology already defined for benchmarking network interconnect
devices in RFCs 1242 and 1944 to switching devices.
Although it might be found useful to apply some of the terms defined
here to a broader range of network interconnect devices, this RFC
primarily deals with devices which switch frames at the Medium Access
Control (MAC) layer. It defines terms in relation to the traffic put
to use when benchmarking switching devices, forwarding performance,
congestion control, latency, address handling and filtering.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2432
10/1998
(16 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
K. Dubray |
|
Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking |
The purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to the
benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon the
tenets set forth in RFC 1242, RFC 2285, and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2544
03/1999
(31 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
S. Bradner
J. McQuaid |
|
Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices |
|
This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be
used to describe the performance characteristics of a network
interconnecting device. In addition to defining the tests this
document also describes specific formats for reporting the results of
the tests. Appendix A lists the tests and conditions that we believe
should be included for specific cases and gives additional
information about testing practices. Appendix B is a reference
listing of maximum frame rates to be used with specific frame sizes
on various media and Appendix C gives some examples of frame formats
to be used in testing.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2647
08/1999
(26 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
D. Newman |
|
Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance |
This document defines terms used in measuring the performance of
firewalls. It extends the terminology already used for benchmarking
routers and switches with definitions specific to firewalls.
Forwarding rate and connection-oriented measurements are the primary
metrics used in this document.
Why do we need firewall performance measurements? First, despite the
rapid rise in firewall deployment, there is no standard method of
performance measurement. Second, implementations vary widely, making
it difficult to do direct performance comparisons. Finally, more and
more organizations are deploying firewalls on internal networks
operating at relatively high speeds, while most firewall
implementations remain optimized for use over relatively low-speed
wide-area connections. As a result, users are often unsure whether
the products they buy will stand up to relatively heavy loads.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2761
02/2000
(32 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Dunn
C. Martin |
|
Terminology for ATM Benchmarking |
|
This memo discusses and defines terms associated with performance
benchmarking tests and the results of these tests in the context of
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) based switching devices. The terms
defined in this memo will be used in addition to terms defined in
RFCs 1242, 2285, and 2544.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC2889
08/2000
(35 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
R. Mandeville
J. Perser |
|
Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices |
This document is intended to provide methodology for the benchmarking
of local area network (LAN) switching devices. It extends the
methodology already defined for benchmarking network interconnecting
devices in RFC 2544 to switching devices.
This RFC primarily deals with devices which switch frames at the
Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. It provides a methodology for
benchmarking switching devices, forwarding performance, congestion
control, latency, address handling and filtering. In addition to
defining the tests, this document also describes specific formats for
reporting the results of the tests.
A previous document, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", defined many of the terms that are used in this
document. The terminology document SHOULD be consulted before
attempting to make use of this document.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3116
06/2001
(127 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Dunn
C. Martin |
|
Methodology for ATM Benchmarking |
|
This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be
used to describe the performance characteristics of ATM (Asynchronous
Transfer Mode) based switching devices. In addition to defining the
tests this document also describes specific formats for reporting the
results of the tests.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3134
06/2001
(16 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
J. Dunn
C. Martin |
|
Terminology for ATM ABR Benchmarking |
|
This memo discusses and defines terms associated with performance
benchmarking tests and the results of these tests in the context of
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) based switching devices supporting
ABR (Available Bit Rate). The terms defined in this memo will be
used in addition to terms defined in RFCs 1242, 2285, and 2544 and
2761.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3222
12/2001
(15 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
G. Trotter |
|
Terminology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB) based Router Performance |
|
This document describes the terms to be used in a methodology that
determines the IP packet forwarding performance of IP routers as a
function of the forwarding information base installed within a
router. The forwarding performance of an IP router may be dependent
upon or may be linked to the composition and size of the forwarding
information base installed within a router.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3511
04/2003
(34 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
B. Hickman
D. Newman
S. Tadjudin
T. Martin |
|
Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance |
|
This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be
used to describe the performance characteristics of firewalls. In
addition to defining the tests, this document also describes specific
formats for reporting the results of the tests.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC3918
10/2004
(31 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
D. Stopp
B. Hickman |
|
Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking |
The purpose of this document is to describe methodology specific to
the benchmarking of multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon
the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 2432 and other IETF
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document
seeks to extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking
Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The
Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect
the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4061
04/2005
(16 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
V. Manral
R. White
A. Shaikh |
|
Benchmarking Basic OSPF Single Router Control Plane Convergence |
This document provides suggestions for measuring OSPF single router
control plane convergence. Its initial emphasis is on the control
plane of a single OSPF router. We do not address forwarding plane
performance.
NOTE: In this document, the word "convergence" relates to single
router control plane convergence only.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4062
04/2005
(9 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
V. Manral
R. White
A. Shaikh |
|
OSPF Benchmarking Terminology and Concepts |
|
This document explains the terminology and concepts used in OSPF
benchmarking. Although some of these terms may be defined elsewhere
(and we will refer the reader to those definitions in some cases) we
include discussions concerning these terms, as they relate
specifically to the tasks involved in benchmarking the OSPF protocol.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4063
04/2005
(11 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
V. Manral
R. White
A. Shaikh |
|
Considerations When Using Basic OSPF Convergence Benchmarks |
|
This document discusses the applicability of various tests for
measuring single router control plane convergence, specifically in
regard to the Open Shortest First (OSPF) protocol. There are two
general sections in this document, the first discusses advantages and
limitations of specific OSPF convergence tests, and the second
discusses more general pitfalls to be considered when routing
protocol convergence is tested.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4098
06/2005
(36 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
H. Berkowitz
E. Davies
S. Hares
P. Krishnaswamy
M. Lepp |
|
Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device Convergence in the Control Plane |
|
This document establishes terminology to standardize the description
of benchmarking methodology for measuring eBGP convergence in the
control plane of a single BGP device. Future documents will address
iBGP convergence, the initiation of forwarding based on converged
control plane information and multiple interacting BGP devices. This
terminology is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. Illustrative
examples of each version are included where relevant.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4689
10/2006
(34 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
S. Poretsky
J. Perser
S. Erramilli
S. Khurana |
|
Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms |
|
This document describes terminology for the benchmarking of devices
that implement traffic control using packet classification based on
defined criteria. The terminology is to be applied to measurements
made on the data plane to evaluate IP traffic control mechanisms.
Rules for packet classification can be based on any field in the IP
header, such as the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), or any
field in the packet payload, such as port number.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4814
03/2007
(26 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
D. Newman
T. Player |
|
Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device Benchmarking |
|
Test engineers take pains to declare all factors that affect a given
measurement, including intended load, packet length, test duration,
and traffic orientation. However, current benchmarking practice
overlooks two factors that have a profound impact on test results.
First, existing methodologies do not require the reporting of
addresses or other test traffic contents, even though these fields
can affect test results. Second, "stuff" bits and bytes inserted in
test traffic by some link-layer technologies add significant and
variable overhead, which in turn affects test results. This document
describes the effects of these factors; recommends guidelines for
test traffic contents; and offers formulas for determining the
probability of bit- and byte-stuffing in test traffic.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC4883
07/2007
(24 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
G. Feher
K. Nemeth
A. Korn
I. Cselenyi |
|
Benchmarking Terminology for Resource Reservation Capable Routers |
|
The primary purpose of this document is to define terminology
specific to the benchmarking of resource reservation signaling of
Integrated Services (IntServ) IP routers. These terms can be used in
additional documents that define benchmarking methodologies for
routers that support resource reservation or reporting formats for
the benchmarking measurements.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5180
05/2008
(20 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
C. Popoviciu
A. Hamza
G. Van de Velde
D. Dugatkin |
|
IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices |
|
The benchmarking methodologies defined in RFC 2544 are IP version
independent. However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the
specificities of IPv6. This document provides additional
benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC 2544, lead to
a more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of
network interconnect devices. IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside
the scope of this document.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
RFC5695
11/2009
(27 p.)
pdf(2p)
|
A. Akhter
R. Asati
C. Pignataro |
|
MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows |
|
This document describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking
of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) forwarding devices, limited
to the most common MPLS packet forwarding scenarios and delay
measurements for each, considering IP flows. It builds upon the
tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 1242, and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm.
|
|
|
| |
| List |
Status: | Informational |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
