Benchmarking Methodology for Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Giuseppe Fioccola , Eduard V , Paolo Volpato , Luis M. Contreras , Bruno Decraene | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| Replaces | draft-vfv-bmwg-srmpls-bench-meth, draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-vfv-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-00
BMWG G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft E. Vasilenko
Intended status: Informational P. Volpato
Expires: 5 September 2024 Huawei Technologies
L. Contreras
Telefonica
B. Decraene
Orange
4 March 2024
Benchmarking Methodology for Segment Routing
draft-vfv-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-00
Abstract
This document defines a methodology for benchmarking Segment Routing
(SR) performance for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) and MPLS (SR-
MPLS). It builds upon RFC 2544, RFC 5180, RFC 5695 and RFC 8402.
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. SR-MPLS Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. SRv6 Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Test Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Control Plane Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Frame Formats and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Protocol Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Trial Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Traffic Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. Buffer tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. SR Forwarding Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.1. Throughput of a Source Edge Node . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2. Throughput of a Transit Segment Endpoint Node . . . . 18
6.1.3. Throughput of a Destination Edge Node . . . . . . . . 18
6.1.4. Throughput of an Ordinary Transit Node . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Buffers size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Frame Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. System Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6. Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR), defined in [RFC8402], leverages the source
routing paradigm. The headend node steers a packet through an SR
Policy [RFC9256], instantiated as an ordered list of segments. A
segment, referred to by its Segment Identifier (SID), can have a
semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR
supports per-class explicit routing while maintaining per-class state
only at the ingress nodes to the SR domain.
However, there is no standard method defined to compare and contrast
the foundational SR packet forwarding capabilities of network
devices. This document aims to extend the efforts of [RFC1242],
[RFC2544], [RFC5180] and [RFC5695] to SR network.
The SR architecture can be instantiated on two data-plane: SR over
MPLS (SR-MPLS) and SR over IPv6 (SRv6).
SR can be directly applied to the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) architecture [RFC8660]. A segment is encoded as an MPLS
label. An SR Policy is instantiated as a stack of labels.
SR can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with a new type of routing
header called the SR Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. An instruction is
associated with a segment and encoded as an IPv6 address. An SRv6
segment is also called an SRv6 SID. An SR Policy is instantiated as
an ordered list of SRv6 SIDs in the routing header. The active
segment is indicated by the Destination Address (DA) of the packet.
SR involves 3 types of forwarding plane operations (PUSH/ NEXT/
CONTINUE) as further described in Section 2 and Section 3. SR
Segment List for PUSH operation is typically constructed by the
source node with a SR Policy, see [RFC9256].
The SID stack in scope of this document has a minimum of two entries,
e.g. two SIDs. But it is RECOMMENDED that the tests described in the
next sections can be applied to label stacks with more than two SIDs.
The reason for having a minimum of two SIDs, hence two labels, is to
simulate a SID list, e.g. to simulate the explicit steering of a
packet flow through different paths/nodes. It SHOULD be tested until
the maximum SID depth supported or claimed by the equipment. In this
way, it is possible to really identify the performance impact of a
large SID list, ideally all SID depths between two SIDs and the
maximum SID depth can be tested.
This document is limited to underlay, like Headend encapsulations
(H.Encaps.xxx) and segment Endpoints (End, End.X) for SRv6. It is
expected that future documents may cover the benchmarking of
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
applications like Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) [RFC4364], EVPN [RFC7432],
different SRv6 decapsulations (End.Dxxx), Binding (End.Bxxx), Fast
ReRoute [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], Compressed SID
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression], etc.
[RFC5695] describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking of
MPLS forwarding devices, by considering the most common MPLS packet
forwarding scenarios and corresponding performance measurements.
[RFC5180] provides benchmarking methodology recommendations that
address IPv6-specific aspects, such as evaluating the forwarding
performance of traffic containing extension headers.
The purpose of this document is to describe a methodology specific to
the benchmarking of Segment Routing. The methodology described is a
complement for [RFC5180] and [RFC5695].
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119],
RFC 8174 [RFC8174].
2. SR-MPLS Forwarding
SR leverages the source routing paradigm. In MPLS, the ordered list
of segments is encoded as a stack of MPLS labels. An SR Policy is
instantiated through the MPLS Label Stack: the Segment IDs (SIDs) of
a Segment List are inserted as MPLS Labels. The classical forwarding
functions available for MPLS networks allow implementing the SR
operations. However SR-MPLS Segment List typically contains more
labels.
The operations applied by the SR-MPLS forwarding plane are PUSH,
NEXT, and CONTINUE.
The SR PUSH operation corresponds to the MPLS Label Push function
[RFC3032]. It consists of pushing one or more MPLS labels on top of
an incoming packet then sending it out of a particular physical or
virtual interface towards a particular next hop.
The NEXT operation corresponds to the Label Pop function, which
consists of removing the topmost label. The action associated with
the popping depends on the instruction associated with the active SID
on the received packet prior to the popping.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
The CONTINUE operation corresponds to the Label Swap function,
according to the MPLS label-swapping rules in [RFC3031]. It consists
of associating an incoming label with an outgoing interface and
outgoing label and forwarding the packet to the outgoing interface.
The encapsulation of an IP packet into an SR-MPLS packet is performed
at the edge of an SR-MPLS domain, reusing the MPLS Forwarding
Equivalent Class (FEC) concept. A Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC)
can be associated with an SR Policy ([RFC9256]). When pushing labels
onto a packet's label stack, the Time-to-Live (TTL) field and the
Traffic Class (TC) field of each label stack entry must also be set.
All SR nodes in the SR domain use a signaling mechanism to advertise
their own prefix SIDs, e.g. IGP, BGP, PCE, NETCONF. After receiving
the advertised prefix SIDs, each SR node calculates the prefix SIDs
to the advertisers. The prefix SID advertisement can be an absolute
value advertisement or an index value advertisement. In this regard,
the mapping of Segments to MPLS Labels (SIDs) is an important process
in the SR-MPLS data plane. Each router can advertise its own
available label space to be used for Global Segments called Segment
Routing Global Block (SRGB) and an identical range of labels (SRGB)
should be used in all routers in order to simplify services and
operations. In the SR domain Global Segments can be identified by an
index, which has to be re-mapped into a label, or by an absolute
value. This is relevant for the nodes that perform the NEXT
operation to the segments, because the label for the next segments
needs to be crafted accordingly.
[RFC9256] specifies the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR
Policy. The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented
with the ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy. SR
Policy state is instantiated only on the headend node, which steers a
flow into an SR Policy. Intermediate and endpoint nodes do not
require any per policy state to be maintained. SR Policies can be
instantiated on the headend dynamically and on demand basis. SR
policy may be installed by PCEP [RFC8664], BGP
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], or via manual configuration
on the router. PCEP and BGP signaling of SR Policies can be the case
of a controller-based deployment.
3. SRv6 Forwarding
SR leverages the source routing paradigm. In SRv6, a SID is
allocated as an IPv6 address. For the IPv6 data plane, a new type of
IPv6 Routing Extension Header, called Segment Routing Header (SRH)
has been defined [RFC8754]. The SRH contains the Segment List as an
ordered list of IPv6 addresses: each address in the list is a SID.
Hence SRv6 Segment list typically contains more than two SIDs. A
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
dedicated field, referred to as Segments Left, is used to maintain
the pointer to the active SID of the Segment List.
There are three different categories of nodes that may be involved in
segment routing networks.
The SR source node is the headend node and steers a packet into an SR
Policy. It can be a host originating an IPv6 packet or an SR domain
ingress router encapsulating a received packet into an outer IPv6
packet and inserts the SRH in the outer IPv6 header. It sets the
first SID of the SR Policy as the IPv6 Destination Address of the
packet.
The SR transit node forwards packets destined for a remote segment as
a normal IPv6 packet based on the IPv6 destination address, because
the IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a segment.
According to [RFC8200] the only node allowed to inspect the Routing
Extension Header (and therefore the SRH) is the node corresponding to
the destination address of the packet.
The SR segment endpoint node receives packets whose IPv6 destination
address is locally configured as a segment. It creates Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for its local SIDs. For each SR
packet, it inspects the SRH, may prepare some actions (like
forwarding through a particular interface), then replaces the IPv6
destination address with the new active segment.
The operations applied by the SRv6 packet processing are different at
the SR source, transit, and SR segment endpoint nodes.
The processing of the SR source node corresponds to the sequence of
creation of an IPv6 packet with an SRH, composed of SIDs stored in
reverse order, and setting of the IPv6 Destination Address as the
first SID of the SR Policy. It can be performed by encapsulating a
packet into an outer IPv6 packet with an SRH.
The processing of the SR segment endpoint node corresponds to the
detection of the new active segment, which is the next segment in the
Segment List and the related modification of the IPv6 destination
address of the outer IPv6 header. Then packets are forwarded on the
basis of the IPv6 forwarding table.
The processing of the SR transit node corresponds to normal
forwarding of the packets containing the SR header. In SRv6, the
transit nodes do not need to be SRv6 aware, as every IPv6 router can
act as an SRv6 transit node since any IPv6 node will maintain a plain
IPv6 FIB entry for any prefix, no matter if the prefix represents a
segment or not.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
[RFC9256] specifies the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR
Policy. The header of a packet steered in an SR Policy is augmented
with the ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy. SR
Policy state is instantiated only on the headend node, which steers a
flow into an SR Policy. Intermediate and endpoint nodes do not
require any state to be maintained. SR Policies can be instantiated
on the headend dynamically and on demand basis. SR policy may be
installed by PCEP [RFC8664], BGP
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy], or via manual configuration
on the router. PCEP and BGP signaling of SR Policies can be the case
of a controller-based deployment.
In addition to the basic SRv6 packet processing, the SRv6 Network
Programming model [RFC8986] describes a set of functions that can be
associated to segments and executed in a given SRv6 node.
Examples of such functions are described in [RFC8986], but, in
practice, any behavior and function can be associated with a local
SID in a node, to apply any special processing on the packet. The
definition of a standardized set of segment routing functions
facilitates the deployment of SR domains with interoperable equipment
from multiple vendors.
According to [RFC8986], 128 bit SID can be logically split into three
fields and interpreted as LOCATOR:FUNCTION:ARGS (in short
LOC:FUNCT:ARG) where LOC includes the L most significant bits, FUNCT
the following F bits and ARG the remaining A bits, where L+F+A=128.
The LOC corresponds to an IPv6 prefix (for example with a length of
48, 56, or 64 bits) that can be distributed by the routing protocols
and provides the reachability of a node that hosts some functions.
All the different functions residing in a node have a different FUNCT
code, so that their SIDs will be different. The ARG bits are used to
provide information (arguments) to a function. From the routing
point of view, the solution is scalable, as a single prefix is
distributed for a node, which implements a potentially large number
of functions and related arguments.
4. Test Methodology
4.1. Test Setup
The test setup in general is compliant with section 6 of [RFC2544]
but augmented by the methodology specified in section 4 of [RFC5695]
using many interfaces. It is needed to test the packet forwarding
engine that may have different performance based on the number of
interfaces served. The Device Under Test (DUT) may have
oversubscribed interfaces, then traffic for such interfaces should be
proportionally decreased according to the specific DUT
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
oversubscription ratio. All interfaces served by a particular packet
forwarding engine should be loaded in reverse proportion to the
claimed oversubscription ratio. Tests SHOULD be done with
bidirectional traffic that better reflects the real environment for
SR nodes. It is OPTIONAL to choose a non-equal proportion for
upstream and downstream traffic for some specific aggregation nodes.
The RECOMMENDED topology for SR Forwarding Benchmarking should be the
same used for MPLS benchmarking, as described in section 4 of
[RFC5695]. A simplified view is reported below for reference.
+----------+
+---------| |<---------+
| +-------| Tester |<-------+ |
| | +-----| |<-----+ | |
| | | +----------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | | +--------+ | | |
| | +----->| |-------+ | |
| +------->| DUT |---------+ |
+--------->| |-----------+
+--------+
Figure 1: Test environment for SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking
Differently from [RFC5695], this document prefers the use of the term
"interface" instead of "port" as an interface may be either virtual
or physical. Also, ports may be confused with TCP/UDP terms.
The RECOMMENDED topology for SRv6 Forwarding Benchmarking should be
the same as MPLS and it is described in section 4 of [RFC5695].
Interface numbers involved in the tests and their oversubscription
ratio MUST be reported. This document is benchmarking only "source
routing". Hence, SIDs represent only prefix and adjacency segments,
that may be carried in IGP extensions. For the case of SRv6, SIDs
represent only Headend encapsulation (H.Encaps.xxx) or segment
Endpoint (End, End.X). In general, Services (L2/L3 VPNs and much
more) are typically encoded by the last SID in the stack, but it is
out of the scope of this document.
It is OPTIONAL to test SRH in the combination with any other
extension headers (fragmentation, hop-by-hop, destination options,
etc.) but in all tests, the SRH header should be present for the test
to be relevant for SRv6. It is RECOMMENDED to follow section 5.3 of
[RFC5180] to introduce other extension headers in proportion 1%, 10%,
50% that may better reflect real use cases.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
Segment Routing may also be implemented as a software network
function in an NFV Infrastructure and, in this case, additional
considerations should be done. [ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007] describes test
guidelines for NFV capabilities that require interactions between the
components implementing NFV functionality.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes.
4.2. Control Plane Support
SRv6 and SR-MPLS have different terminology that is inherited from
[RFC8402] for SR-MPLS and extended by [RFC8986] for SRv6.
As specified in [RFC8402], in the context of an IGP-based distributed
control plane, two topological segments are defined: the IGP-
Adjacency segment and the IGP-Prefix segment; while, in the context
of a BGP-based distributed control plane, two topological segments
are defined: the BGP peer segment and the BGP Prefix segment.
As specified in [RFC8986], topological segments have the structure
that consists of Locator and Endpoint behavior (H.Encaps, End, End.X,
etc), the latter may have a few different flavors (PSP, USP, USD).
Different combinations of behavior and flavor are recommended for
every test.
It is RECOMMENDED that the DUT and test tool support at least one
option for SID stack construction:
* IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing, [RFC8667] for SR-MPLS
and [RFC9352] for SRv6
* OSPFv2 Extensions to Support Segment Routing, [RFC8665] for SR-
MPLS.
* OSPFv3 Extensions to Support Segment Routing, [RFC8666] for SR-
MPLS and [RFC9513] for SRv6
* Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
[RFC8669]
* Segment Routing Policy Architecture [RFC9256].
A routing protocol (OSPF or IS-IS) SHOULD be used for the
construction of the first SRH SID. It is RECOMMENDED to test SR
policy with a SID depth between two SIDs and the maximum SID depth
supported.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
The long SID list may be needed for extensive traffic engineering or
other scenarios. The data plane needs to be compliant with the SRv6
control plane requirements (sections 4 of [RFC9513] and [RFC9352] and
section 2 of [RFC9514]) to disclose the maximum SID list supported
for encapsulation, decapsulation, and SRH deletion in transit. The
SID list SHOULD NOT be tested for respective operations above
announced capabilities of OSPF or ISIS on the DUT.
It is RECOMMENDED that the top SID on the list should emulate traffic
engineering scenario. In all cases, SID stack configuration SHOULD
happen before packet forwarding would be started. Control plane
convergence speed is not the subject of the present tests.
The SID list construction method and SR policy construction method
used MUST be reported according to Section 5.
4.3. Frame Formats and Sizes
SR tests will use Frame characteristics similarly to section 4.1.5 of
[RFC5695], except the need for a bigger MTU to accommodate SRH or
MPLS SID stack.
It is assumed that MTU is big enough to accommodate all frame sizes
proposed below. Fragmentation is not an option for SR tests.
It is to be noted that [RFC5695] requires exactly a single entry in
the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet that is not enough to simulate
a typical SR SID list. The number of entries in SRH MUST be
reported.
According to section 4.1.4.2 of [RFC5695], the payload is RECOMMENDED
to have an IP packet (IPv6 or IPv4 with UDP or TCP) to better
represent the real environment. The minimal Ethernet payload (46B)
could not accommodate the whole IPv6 stack (not enough room for TCP
or UDP), hence only IPv4 is possible to use if the test for minimal
Ethernet payload is needed. It is possible to choose the bigger
payload size for the IPv6 only environment. For the headend node,
the frame size of the incoming interface(s) does not include SRH,
therefore it is necessary that the outgoing interface(s) support The
increased frame size due to the creation of the SRH and outer IPv6
attachment.
It is assumed that the test would be for Ethernet media only. Other
media is possible (see section 4.1.5.2 of [RFC5695] for the POS
example). Some layer 2 technologies (like POS/PPP) have bit- or
byte- stuffing then [RFC4814] may help to calculate real performance
more accurately or else 1-2% error is expected. The most popular
layer 2 technology for SR is Ethernet, it does not have stuffing.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
RECOMMENDED frame sizes are presented below. Any other frame sizes
may be added if suspected of abnormal behavior. For example, some
architectures may allocate buffer memory in big fixed chunks that may
drop performance if frame sizes are chosen just a few octet more than
the fixed chunk size (the second chunk would have a very low memory
utilization).
The resulting Ethernet frame structure is depicted in the next
figures.
<-------------------------72-1526B-------------------------->
<---18B---><--4B--><--4B--><-----------46-1500-------------->
+---------+-------+-------+---------+-----------------------+
| | MPLS | MPLS | | | |
| Layer 2 | Label | Label | Layer 3 | Layer 4 | High layers |
+---------+-------+-------+---------+-----------------------+
Figure 2: Ethernet Frame Structure for SR-MPLS
<---18B---><-40B-><8+n*16B><--------46-1500-9000B----------->
+---------+-------+-------+---------+-----------------------+
| | Outer | | Inner | | |
| Layer 2 | IPv6 | SRH | Layer 3 | Layer 4 | High layers |
+---------+-------+-------+---------+-----------------------+
Figure 3: Ethernet Frame Structure for SRv6
RECOMMENDED payload sizes (encapsulated packet with L3 headers and
above) are the following:
* Ethernet Minimal: 46
* DUT Minimal Wire Speed: typically 128-256 (it depends on the DUT
specification)
* Ethernet Typical: 1500
* DUT Maximum: 9000 (or any claimed maximum)
Note that n*4 octets should be added in the previous calculations for
SR-MPLS tests to accommodate MPLS labels needed for respective tests.
While 40+8+n*16 bytes should be added for SRv6 tests, where
40 octets are added for the outer (tunnel) IPv6 header
8 octets are added for the SRH header itself
n is the number of segments multiplied on 16 octet SID size.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
The typical frame size values are listed above for the DUT minimal
wire speed and maximum, they can be modified according to the DUT
characteristics. The minimum wire speed frame size can be considered
based on the DUT specification but, in some cases, many tests may be
needed in the search for the real minimum wire speed frame size.
VLAN tag may additionally increase the frame size. VLAN tag tests
are OPTIONAL.
4.4. Protocol Addresses
IANA reserved an IPv6 address block 2001:0002::/48 ([RFC4773]) for
use with IPv6 benchmark testing (see section 8 of [RFC5180]) and
block 198.18.0.0/15 ([RFC3330]) for IPv4 benchmark testing. Source
and destination addresses for the test streams SHOULD belong to the
IPv6 range assigned by IANA. The type of infrastructure protocol
(IPv6 vs IPv4) that should be used for IGP and BGP in the tests
should be chosen according to the test purpose and requirements. It
is not principal what Locator blocks would be chosen for tests. It
may be /52, /56, /64, or even bigger. It is possible to test a few
different Locator blocks if there is a need.
As it is discussed in section 3.1, there is a need to load the whole
forwarding engine (on all interfaces). [RFC4814] discusses the
importance to have many flows with address randomization for
acceptable hash-based load balancing that is implemented in all
forwarding engines. Note that IPv6 flow label randomization must be
used, according to [RFC6438] and [RFC8754]. In the context of this
document, it may also be relevant for SIDs, because SIDs may be used
for hash to choose the next link (depending on DUT default or desired
configuration). It is important to check what exactly is used for
the hash load balancing algorithm on the DUT to keep these numbers
sufficiently random and at volume. It is very often that IP
addresses and transport protocol ports are used instead of SIDs for
SR-MPLS.
4.5. Trial Duration
The test portion of each trial must take into account the respective
protocol configuration. IGP protocols typically have a shorter hold
time, while some BGP default configurations may be up to 180 seconds.
It is needed to check the default hold time of the DUT for the
respective protocol used.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
In general, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be no less than 250
seconds, which is a reasonable value based on common hold time
values. But a test can also adapt to the real setup and select a
different value if default configuration has been changed. The test
portion of each trial can be chosen at least 10 seconds longer than
the hold time to verify that the DUT can maintain a stable control
plane when the data-forwarding plane is under stress.
4.6. Traffic Verification
Traffic verification is following section 10 of [RFC2544] and section
4.1.8 of [RFC5695]. The text is copied here for your convenience.
As stated in section 10 of [RFC2544], "the test equipment SHOULD
discard any frames received during a test run that are not actual
forwarded test frames. For example, keep-alive and routing update
frames SHOULD NOT be included in the count of received frames. In
all cases, sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was
received on the wrong interface, the correct interface, or not
received at all. In all cases, the test equipment SHOULD verify the
length of the received frames and check that they match the expected
length.
Preferably, the test equipment SHOULD include sequence numbers (or
signature) in the transmitted frames and check for these numbers on
the received frames. If this is done, the reported results SHOULD
include in addition to the number of frames dropped, the number of
frames that were received out of order, the number of duplicate
frames received and the number of gaps in the received frame
numbering sequence".
Many test tools may, by default, only verify that they have received
the embedded signature on the receive side. However, some SRv6 tests
assumes headers modifications (push or pop the MPLS label stack, add
or delete SRH, replace destination address, adjust "segments left").
All packets SHOULD be checked of the correct headers values on the
receiving side.
In addition, section 4.1.8 of [RFC5695] requires that "the presence
or absence of the MPLS label stack, every field value inside the
label stack, if present, ethertype (0x8847 or 0x8848 versus 0x0800 or
0x86DD), frame sequencing, and frame check sequence (FCS) MUST be
verified in the received frame". This "to verify that the packets
received by the test tool carry the expected MPLS label".
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
4.7. Buffer tests
Back-to-back frame test was initially discussed in section 26.4
[RFC2544] and later improved in [RFC9004] which is considered the
comprehensive reference for back-to-back frame test. Modern
forwarding engines are typically flexible in the buffer distribution
between different interfaces. Hence, like for all other benchmarking
tests, it is important to stress the forwarding engine on all
interfaces. It should be necessary to perform throughput tests first
because only frame sizes that stress DUT below wire-speed can be used
for back-to-back tests. Buffers would be filled with the rate equal
to the difference between the theoretical maximum frame rate (wire-
speed) and DUT measured throughput for the respective frame size.
The test time could be much shorter than recommended in [RFC9004]
because typical SR DUT is hardware-based with claimed buffers between
30ms to 100ms. It is better to consult with the vendor to find a
good starting search point. If DUT is software-based then [RFC9004]
recommendation for 2-30 seconds is applied.
Queuing SHOULD NOT have weighted random early detection (WRED) or any
other mechanism that may start dropping packets before the buffer is
filled. Queuing SHOULD be configured for the tail drop which is,
typically, a non-default configuration. Back-to-back frame test is
rather complex and expensive (50 runs for every frame size). Hence,
it is OPTIONAL for SR.
5. Reporting Format
There are a few parameters that must be changed in section 5 of
[RFC5695] for SR tests.
Reporting parameter preserved from [RFC5695]:
* Throughput in bytes per second and frames per second
* Frame sizes in Octets (see Section 4.3)
* Interface speed (10/50/100/400/800/etc GE)
* Interface encapsulation (Ethernet or Ethernet VLAN)
* Interface media type (probably Ethernet)
Parameters changed from [RFC5695]:
* SR Forwarding Operations (PUSH/ NEXT/ CONTINUE).
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
* Label Distribution protocol and IGP are the same in the context of
SR. Hence, it can be called "Label distribution methods" for SR-
MPLS or "Locator and Endpoint behaviors methods" for SRv6.
New parameters that MUST be reported are:
* Interface numbers involved for ingress and egress in the tests and
their respective oversubscription ratio.
* Upstream/downstream traffic proportion (equal bidirectional or
some other split).
* Number of Segments considered in the SID list.
* Behavior (H.Encaps, etc.) and Flavor (PSP, USP, USD) used for SRv6
tests (according to [RFC8986]).
* SR Policy construction method (PCEP, BGP, manual configuration).
* Type of the payload (IPv6/IPv4, UDP/TCP).
* Time to recover from the overload state
* Time to recover from the reset state and reset type (particular
module in reset)
* Tested buffers size in frames with respective frame size (for the
optional back-to-back test); it is possible to record calculated
buffer time for wire-speed throughput in milliseconds.
Some parameters may be the same for all tests (like Media type or
Ethernet encapsulation) then it may be reported one time.
6. SR Forwarding Benchmarking Tests
In general, tests are compliant with [RFC2544] but the important
correction discussed in section 6 of [RFC2544] is applied: interfaces
chosen for every test MUST stress all interfaces served by one
forwarding engine. It is better to check the DUT specification for
the relationship between interfaces and the forwarding engine to
minimize the number of interfaces involved. But it is possible to
understand the worst case by looking at the throughput and latency
from the trial tests. If any doubt exists about how full is the
offered load for the forwarding engine then it is better to stress
all interfaces of the line card or all interfaces for the whole
router with a centralized forwarding engine. A partial load on the
forwarding engine would show optimistic results. Controllable
traffic distribution between many interfaces (as specified in section
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
4 of [RFC5695]) would need separate SID announcements for separate
interfaces.
The performance of modern packet forwarding engines may be huge that
may need to involve many testers to sufficiently load the DUT as
presented in figure 4. Then results correlation and recalculation of
the real performance would be an additional burden.
+----------+
+-------| Tester1 |<-------+
| +-----| |<-----+ |
| | +----------+ | |
| | | |
| | +--------+ | |
| +----->| |-------+ |
+------->| DUT |---------+
+------->| |---------+
| +----->| |-------+ |
| | +--------+ | |
| | | |
| | +----------+ | |
| +-----| Tester2 |<-----+ |
+-------| |<-------+
+----------+
Figure 4: Many testers
As specified in section 6 of [RFC5695], the traffic is sent from test
tool Tx interface(s) to the DUT at a constant load for a fixed-time
interval, and is received from the DUT on test tool Rx interface(s).
If any frame loss is detected, then a new iteration is needed where
the offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An
iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum
offered frame rate with a zero frame loss (Non Drop Rate). Each
iteration should involve varying the offered load of the traffic,
while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number of
interfaces, number of addresses, frame size, etc.) constant, until
the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is
determined.
The test can be repeated with a varying number of Segments pushed on
ingress in order to measure the resulting maximum number. It can
also be tested the maximum number of Segments that are correctly
load-balanced in transit by only changing the Nth label in the stack
and detect when load-balancing fails.
Therefore, the two main parameters that can be evaluated are:
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
Maximum offered frame rate,
Maximum number of Segments that can be pushed and hashed by the SR
node for load-balancing.
6.1. Throughput
This section contains a description of the tests that are related to
the characterization of a DUT's SR traffic forwarding throughput.
The list of segments for SR-MPLS is represented as a stack of MPLS
labels. There are three distinct operations to be tested: PUSH, NEXT
and CONTINUE. These correspond to the three forwarding operations of
an MPLS packet: PUSH (or LSP Ingress), POP (or LSP Egress), or SWAP.
The list of segments for SRv6 is represented as a list of IPv6
addresses, included in the SRH. There are three distinct types of
nodes that are involved in segment routing networks that may
represent four different cases.
Note that the different operations are separately discussed only for
throughput tests, but they are equally applicable to the other tests
below.
6.1.1. Throughput of a Source Edge Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Source Node, which is the PUSH forwarding operation.
It is when the Source SR node, which corresponds to the headend node,
encapsulates a received packet into SR-MPLS or SRv6.
In the case of SR-MPLS, SID list is PUSHed to the MPLS label
stack. It is similar to label Push or LSP Ingress forwarding
operation, as per section 6.1.1 of [RFC5695] and section 26.1 of
[RFC2544].
In the case of SRv6, it is encapsulated the SR Header (SRH) as a
Routing Extension Header in the outer IPv6 header. The Segment
List in the SRH is composed of SIDs and the Source SR node sets
the first SID of the SR Policy as the IPv6 Destination Address of
the packet. The RECOMMENDED headend behavior is H.Encaps, in case
of interest for another behavior (H.Encaps.Red or H.Encaps.L2 or
H.Encaps.L2.Red) it is OPTIONAL to test it with proper reporting.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.1 of [RFC5695] or section 26.1 of
[RFC2544] with extension to test SID list longer than 1 SID (more
than 2 are RECOMMENDED). SID list can be from 1 to N SIDs. N could
be specified a priori or measured as part of the test. The test tool
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es) and SID(s) on respective
sides, as per Section 4.4, and must use one option for SID stack
construction, as per Section 4.2, on its receive and transmit
interfaces towards the DUT.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.1.2. Throughput of a Transit Segment Endpoint Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Segment Endpoint Node, which is the CONTINUE
forwarding operation. It is when the SR Segment Endpoint node
receives packets whose SID is locally configured as a segment.
In the case of SR-MPLS, it is equivalent to MPLS Label Swap or
Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP), as per section 6.1.2 of [RFC5695] and
section 26.1 of [RFC2544]. Non-reserved MPLS label values MUST be
used.
In the case of SRv6, the SR Segment Endpoint node inspects the SR
header: it detects the new active segment, i.e. the next segment
in the Segment List, modifies the IPv6 destination address of the
outer IPv6 header and forwards the packet on the basis of the IPv6
forwarding table. The RECOMMENDED endpoint behavior is End.X, in
case of interest for another behavior (End, End.T, End.BM,
End.B6.Encaps, End.B6.Encaps.Red) it is OPTIONAL to test it with
proper reporting. SRH SL (Segment Left) is assumed to be bigger
than zero for this test. Moreover, it is assumed that DUT would
not need to delete headers (no PSP, USD, or USP).
Procedure: Similar to section 6.1 of [RFC5695] or section 26.1 of
[RFC2544] with extension to test SID list longer than 1 SID (more
than 2 are RECOMMENDED). SID list can be from 1 to N SIDs. N could
be specified a priori or measured as part of the test. The test tool
must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es) and SID(s) on respective
sides, as per Section 4.4, and must use one option for SID stack
construction, as per Section 4.2, on its receive and transmit
interfaces towards the DUT.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.1.3. Throughput of a Destination Edge Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Segment Endpoint Node that needs decapsulation, which
is the NEXT forwarding operation.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
In the case of SR-MPLS, it is equivalent to MPLS Label Pop or
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP), as per section 6.1.3 of [RFC5695]
and section 26.1 of [RFC2544].
In the case of SRv6, it is when the SR Segment Endpoint node
receives packets whose IPv6 destination address is locally
configured as a segment and SL in the SRH header is decremented to
zero. The SR Segment Endpoint node inspects the SR header: it
detects the new active segment, i.e. the next segment in the
Segment List, modifies the IPv6 destination address of the outer
IPv6 header, decapsulate the packet, and forwards the packet on
the basis of the IPv6 forwarding table. The RECOMMENDED endpoint
decapsulation behavior is End with USD flavor, in case of interest
for another flavor (PSP, USP) it is OPTIONAL to test it with
proper reporting.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.1 of [RFC5695] or section 26.1 of
[RFC2544] with extension to test SID list longer than 1 SID (more
than 2 are RECOMMENDED). SID list can be from 1 to N SIDs. N could
be specified a priori or measured as part of the test. The test tool
must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es) and SID(s) on respective
sides, as per Section 4.4, and must use one option for SID stack
construction, as per Section 4.2, on its receive and transmit
interfaces towards the DUT.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.1.4. Throughput of an Ordinary Transit Node
Objective: To obtain the DUT's Throughput during the packet
processing of a Transit Node. It is when a Transit node forwards the
packet containing the SR header as a normal IPv6 packet because the
IPv6 destination address does not locally match with a segment. This
test is possible only for SRv6, SR-MPLS requires all transit nodes to
support MPLS.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.1 of [RFC5695] or section 26.1 of
[RFC2544] with extension to test SID list longer than 1 SID (more
than 2 are RECOMMENDED). SID list can be from 1 to N SIDs. N could
be specified a priori or measured as part of the test. The test tool
must advertise and learn the IP prefix(es) and SID(s) on respective
sides, as per Section 4.4, and must use one option for SID stack
construction, as per Section 4.2, on its receive and transmit
interfaces towards the DUT.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
6.2. Buffers size
Back-to-back frame test is OPTIONAL and SHOULD be performed only
after throughput tests because it SHOULD use only frame sizes that
DUT is not capable to forward wire-speed, as explained in
Section 4.7.
Objective: To determine the buffer size as defined in section 6 of
[RFC9004] for each of the SR forwarding operations.
Procedure: Should be inherited from [RFC9004] with SID list longer
than 1 SID (more than 2 are RECOMMENDED). Despite the simple general
idea for filling the buffer until tail drop, [RFC9004] has many
details for procedure, precautions, and calculations that would be
too lengthy to copy here.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.3. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency as defined in section 6.2 of
[RFC5695] and section 26.2 of [RFC2544] for each of the SR forwarding
operations (PUSH, NEXT, CONTINUE). It is RECOMMENDED to test all
three (for SR-MPLS) or four (for SRv6) test types discussed in
Section 6.1.
Procedure: Similar to Section 6.1. It is OPTIONAL to improve the
procedure according to section 7.2 of [RFC8219] with calculations for
typical and worst-case latency.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.4. Frame Loss
Objective: To determine the frame-loss rate (as defined in section
6.3 of [RFC5695] and section 26.3 of [RFC2544]) for each of the SR
forwarding operations of a DUT throughout the entire range of input
data rates and frame sizes. The primary idea is to see what would be
the frame loss under the overload conditions. It may be that
overloaded forwarding engine would forward less traffic than in the
situation close to the overload. Throughput may drop below the
possible maximum. As per section 26.3 of [RFC2544], it is
RECOMMENDED to have the data for all tested frame sizes with 10% load
step above the wire-speed throughput measured in Section 6.1. It is
RECOMMENDED to test all three (for SR-MPLS) or four (for SRv6) test
types discussed in Section 6.1.
Procedure: Similar to Section 6.1.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.5. System Recovery
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
overload condition for each of the SR forwarding operations. It is
RECOMMENDED to test all three (for SR-MPLS) or four (for SRv6) test
types discussed in Section 6.1.
Procedure: Similar to section 6.4 of [RFC5695] or section 26.5 of
[RFC2544]. Send a stream of frames at a rate 110% of the recorded
throughput rate or the maximum rate for the media, whichever is
lower, for at least 60 seconds. At Timestamp A reduce the frame rate
to 50% of the above rate and record the time of the last frame lost
(Timestamp B). The system recovery time is determined by subtracting
Timestamp B from Timestamp A. The test SHOULD be repeated a number
of times and the average of the recorded values being reported.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
6.6. Reset
Objective: To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
hardware or software reset for each of the SR forwarding operations.
According to section 1.3 of [RFC6201] it is possible to measure frame
loss or time stamps (depending on the test tool capability).
According to section 4 of [RFC6201] reset could be: 1) hardware, 2)
software, or 3) power interruption. All resets may be partial, i.e.
only for a particular part of hardware (line card) or software
(module). Especial interest may be to test redundant power supplies
or routing engines to make sure that reset does not affect the
traffic. Hardware reset may be soft (command for reset) or hard
(physical removal and insertion of the module). These types of reset
SHOULD be treated as different. It is OPTIONAL to test all three
(for SR-MPLS) or four (for SRv6) test types discussed in Section 6.1,
typically they would give the same result.
Procedure: It is inherited from [RFC6201] (see it for more details).
It is simple in essence: create the traffic, initiate a reset,
measure the time for the traffic lost.
Reporting Format: A table with all parameters specified in Section 5.
All type of reset tests are OPTIONAL.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking methodologies are limited to technology characterization
in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and
constraints. 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
production networks. The benchmarking network topology is 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.
There are no specific security considerations within the scope of
this document.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA requests.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Al Morton, Gabor Lencse, Boris
Khasanov, Carsten Rossenhoevel, Maciek Konstantynowicz for the
precious comments and suggestions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC3330] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3330, September 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3330>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
[RFC4773] Huston, G., "Administration of the IANA Special Purpose
IPv6 Address Block", RFC 4773, DOI 10.17487/RFC4773,
December 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4773>.
[RFC4814] Newman, D. and T. Player, "Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked
Factors in Network Device Benchmarking", RFC 4814,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4814, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4814>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC5695] Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5695, November 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5695>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8219] Georgescu, M., Pislaru, L., and G. Lencse, "Benchmarking
Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", RFC 8219,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8219, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8219>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
10.2. Informative References
[ETSI-GR-NFV-TST-007]
ETSI, "ETSI GR NFV-TST 007: Network Functions
Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; Testing; Guidelines on
Interoperability Testing for MANO", 2020,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/NFV-
TST/001_099/007/03.01.01_60/gr_NFV-TST007v030101p.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-26, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-26>.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Bashandy, A., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-
13, 16 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-
segment-routing-ti-lfa-13>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression]
Cheng, W., Filsfils, C., Li, Z., Decraene, B., and F.
Clad, "Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-
compression-13, 29 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
srv6-srh-compression-13>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[RFC9004] Morton, A., "Updates for the Back-to-Back Frame Benchmark
in RFC 2544", RFC 9004, DOI 10.17487/RFC9004, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9004>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9352] Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352,
February 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9352>.
[RFC9513] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., Ed., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)",
RFC 9513, DOI 10.17487/RFC9513, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9513>.
[RFC9514] Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Chen, M.,
Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "Border Gateway Protocol -
Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over
IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9514, DOI 10.17487/RFC9514, December
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9514>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Palazzo Verrocchio, Centro Direzionale Milano 2
20054 Segrate (Milan)
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft BM for SR March 2024
Eduard Vasilenko
Huawei Technologies
17/4 Krylatskaya str.
Moscow
Email: vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com
Paolo Volpato
Huawei Technologies
Palazzo Verrocchio, Centro Direzionale Milano 2
20054 Segrate (Milan)
Italy
Email: paolo.volpato@huawei.com
Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27]