Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gábor Lencse , Keiichi Shima | ||
| Last updated | 2021-08-27 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| 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-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-01
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group G.L. Lencse
Internet-Draft Szechenyi Istvan University
Intended status: Informational K.S. Shima
Expires: 28 February 2022 IIJ Innovation Institute
27 August 2021
Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
Pseudorandom Port Numbers
draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-01
Abstract
RFC 2544 has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
interconnect devices. RFC 5180 addressed IPv6 specificities and it
also provided a technology update, but excluded IPv6 transition
technologies. RFC 8219 addressed IPv6 transition technologies,
including stateful NAT64. However, none of them discussed how to
apply RFC 4814 pseudorandom port numbers to any stateful NAT (NAT44,
NAT64, NAT66) technologies. We discuss why using pseudorandom port
numbers with stateful NAT gateways is a hard problem and recommend a
solution.
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 28 February 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
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 Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Pseudorandom Port Numbers and Stateful Translation . . . . . 3
3. Test Setup and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recommended Benchmarking Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Restricted Port Number Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Preliminary Test Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Control of the Connection Tracking Table Entries . . . . 7
4.4. Measurement of the Maximum Connection Establishment
Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Real Test Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Writing and Reading Order of the State Table . . . . . . 10
4.7. Peculiarities of Stateful Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.1. Timeout Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.2. Special Warning Against Non-zero Frame Loss
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Implementation and Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Limitations of using UDP as Transport Layer Protocol . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
1. Introduction
[RFC2544] has defined a comprehensive benchmarking methodology for
network interconnect devices, which is still in use. It was mainly
IP version independent, but it used IPv4 in its examples. [RFC5180]
addressed IPv6 specificities and also added technology updates, but
declared IPv6 transition technologies out of its scope. [RFC8219]
addressed the IPv6 transition technologies, including stateful NAT64.
It has reused several benchmarking procedures from [RFC2544] (e.g.
throughput, frame loss rate), it has redefined the latency
measurement, and added further ones, e.g. the PDV (packet delay
variation) measurement.
However, none of them discussed, how to apply [RFC4814] pseudorandom
port numbers, when benchmarking stateful NATxy (NAT44, NAT64, NAT66)
gateways. We are not aware of any other RFCs that address this
question.
First, we discuss why using pseudorandom port numbers with stateful
NATxy gateways is a hard problem.
Then we recommend a solution.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Pseudorandom Port Numbers and Stateful Translation
In its appendix, [RFC2544] has defined a frame format for test frames
including specific source and destination port numbers. [RFC4814]
recommends to use pseudorandom and uniformly distributed values for
both source and destination port numbers. However, stateful NATxy
(NAT44, NAT64, NAT66) solutions use the port numbers to identify
connections. The usage of pseudorandom port numbers causes different
problems depending on the direction.
* As for the private to public direction, pseudorandom source and
destination port numbers could be used, however, this approach
would be a denial of service attack against the stateful NATxy
gateway, because it would exhaust its connection tracking table.
To that end, let us see some calculations using the
recommendations of RFC 4814:
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
- The recommended source port range is: 1024-65535, thus its size
is: 64512.
- The recommended destination port range is: 1-49151, thus its
size is: 49151.
- The number of source and destination port number combinations
is: 3,170,829,312.
We note that section 12 of [RFC2544] also requires testing with
256 destination networks, which further increases the number of
connection tracking table entries.
* As for the public to private direction, the stateful DUT (Device
Under Test) would drop any packets that do not belong to an
existing connection, therefore, the direct usage of pseudorandom
port numbers from the above-mentioned ranges is not feasible.
3. Test Setup and Terminology
Our methodology works with any IP version. We use IPv4 in the Test
Setup shown in Figure 1 to facilitate its easy understanding based on
the well-known stateful NAT44 (also called NAPT: Network Address and
Port Translation) solution.
+--------------------------------------+
10.0.0.2 |Initiator Responder| 198.19.0.2
+-------------| Tester |<------------+
| private IPv4| [state table]| public IPv4 |
| +--------------------------------------+ |
| |
| +--------------------------------------+ |
| 10.0.0.1 | DUT: | 198.19.0.1 |
+------------>| Sateful NATxy gateway |-------------+
private IPv4| [connection tracking table] | public IPv4
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Test Setup for benchmarking stateful NATxy gateways
As for transport layer protocol, [RFC2544] recommended testing with
UDP, and it was kept also in [RFC8219]. For the general
recommendation, we also keep UDP, thus the port numbers in the
following text are to be understood as UDP port numbers. We discuss
the limitation of this approach in Section 6.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
We define the most important elements of our proposed benchmarking
system as follows.
* Connection tracking table: The stateful NATxy gateway uses a
connection tracking table to be able to perform the stateful
translation in the public to private direction. Its size, policy
and content are unknown for the Tester.
* Four tuple: The four numbers that identify a connection are source
IP address, source port number, destination IP address,
destination port number.
* State table: The Responder of the Tester extracts the four tuple
from each received test frame and stores it in its state table.
Recommendation is given for writing and reading order of the state
table in Section 4.6.
* Initiator: The port of the Tester that may initiate a connection
through the stateful DUT in the private to public direction.
Theoretically, it can use any source and destination port numbers
from the ranges recommended by [RFC4814]: if the used four tuple
does not belong to an existing connection, the DUT will register a
new connection into its connection tracking table.
* Responder: The port of the Tester that may not initiate a
connection through the stateful DUT in the public to private
direction. It may send only frames that belong to an existing
connection. To that end, it uses four tuples that have been
previously extracted from the received test frames and stored in
its state table.
* Preliminary test phase: Test frames are sent only by the Initiator
to the Responder through the DUT to fill both the connection
tracking table of the DUT and the state table of the Responder.
This is a newly introduced operation phase for stateful NATxy
benchmarking. The necessity of this phase is explained in
Section 4.2.
* Real test phase: The actual test (e.g. throughput, latency, etc.)
is performed in this phase after the completion of the preliminary
test phase. Test frames are sent as required (e.g. bidirectional
test or unidirectional test in any of the two directions).
4. Recommended Benchmarking Method
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
4.1. Restricted Port Number Ranges
The Initiator SHOULD use restricted ranges for source and destination
port numbers to avoid the denial of service attack like event against
the connection tracking table of the DUT described in Section 2. The
size of the source port number range SHOULD be larger (e.g. in the
order of a few times ten thousand), whereas the size of the
destination port number range SHOULD be smaller (may vary from a few
to several hundreds or thousands as needed). The rationale is that
source and destination port numbers that can be observed in the
Internet traffic are not symmetrical. Whereas source port numbers
may be random, there are a few very popular destination port numbers
(e.g. 443, 80, etc., see [IIR2020]) and others hardly occur. And we
have found that their role is also asymmetric in the Linux kernel
routing hash function [LEN2020].
The product of the sizes of the two ranges can be used as a
parameter. The performance of the stateful NATxy gateway MAY be
examined as a function of this parameter.
4.2. Preliminary Test Phase
The preliminary phase serves two purposes:
1. The connection tracking table of the DUT is filled. It is
important, because its maximum connection establishment rate may
be lower than its maximum frame forwarding rate (that is
throughput).
2. The state table of the Responder is filled with valid four
tuples. It is a precondition for the Responder to be able to
transmit frames that belong to connections exist in the
connection tracking table of the DUT.
Whereas the above two things are always necessary before the real
test phase, the preliminary phase can be used without the real test
phase. It is done so, when the maximum connection establishment rate
is measured (as described in Section 4.4).
A preliminary test phase MUST be performed before all tests performed
in the real test phase. In this phase, the following things happen:
1. The Initiator sends test frames to the Responder through the DUT
at a specific frame rate.
2. The DUT performs the stateful translation of the test frames and
it also stores the new combinations in its connection tracking
table.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
3. The Responder receives the translated test frames and updates its
state table with the received four tuples. The responder
transmits no test frames during the preliminary phase.
When the preliminary test phase is performed in preparation to the
real test phase, the applied frame rate and the duration of the
preliminary phase SHOULD be carefully selected so that:
* The applied frame rate be safely lower than the maximum connection
establishment rate.
* The initial transient of the filling of the connection tracking
table of the DUT be finished.
* Enough four tuples be stored in the state table of the Responder
so that it can generate frames with the proper distribution of the
four tuples.
* The connections do not time out in the DUT even during the
beginning of the real test phase.
4.3. Control of the Connection Tracking Table Entries
The number of the entries in the connection tracking table of the DUT
MAY be controlled by using all different source port number
destination port number combinations.
Let NF and NC denote the number of test frames to send and the number
of all possible source port number destination port number
combinations, respectively.
1. If NF and NC are in the same order of magnitude, then the all
different source port number destination port number combinations
may be computing efficiently generated by preparing a random
permutation of the previously enumerated all possible source port
number destination port number combinations using Dustenfeld's
random shuffle algorithm [DUST1964].
2. If NF is at least an order of magnitude less than NC, then a
simpler solution may be used: the Initiator registers in a table
and then it checks if a given source port number destination port
number combination was already used (and if yes, then it MUST
generate a new one).
3. If NF is at least two orders of magnitude less than NC, then
mostly different source port number destination port number
combinations can be generated without any specific provision.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
Important warning: in normal (non-NAT) router testing, the port
number selection algorithm (whether it is pseudo-random or
enumerated) does not affect final results. However, our experience
with iptables shows that if the connection tracking table is filled
using port number enumeration in increasing order, then the maximum
connection establishment rate of iptables degrades significantly
compared to its performance using pseudorandom port numbers
[LEN2021].
[RFC4814] REQUIRES pseudorandom port numbers, which we believe is a
good approximation of the distribution of the source port numbers a
NATxy gateway on the Internet may face with.
The enumeration of the source port number destination port number
combinations in increasing order MAY be used as an additional
measurement to discover worst case performance.
4.4. Measurement of the Maximum Connection Establishment Rate
The maximum connection establishment rate is an important
characteristic of the stateful NATxy gateway and its determination is
necessary for the safe execution of the preliminary test phase
(without frame loss) before the real test phase.
The measurement procedure of the maximum connection establishment
rate is very similar to the throughput measurement procedure defined
in [RFC2544].
Procedure: The Initiator sends a specific number of test frames using
all (or mostly) different source port number destination port number
combinations at a specific rate through the DUT. The Responder
counts the frames that are successfully translated by the DUT. If
the count of offered frames is equal to the count of received frames,
the rate of the offered stream is raised and the test is rerun. If
fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of the
offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
The maximum connection establishment rate is the fastest rate at
which the count of test frames successfully translated by the DUT is
equal to the number of test frames sent to it by the Initiator.
Notes:
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
1. All different source port number destination port number
combinations SHOULD be used, if the results of the measurement
are published. Mostly different source port number destination
port number combinations MAY be used, if the results of the
measurement are not published, but they are used only to
determine a good enough frame rate for the preliminary test phase
preparing the test system for the real test phase.
2. In practice, we RECOMMEND the usage of binary search.
3. As for the successful translation, the Responder MAY (or SHOULD?)
check that the source IP address is different than the original
source IP address set by the Initiator.
4.5. Real Test Phase
As for the traffic direction, there are three possible cases during
the real test phase:
* bidirectional traffic: The Initiator sends test frames to the
Responder and the Responder sends test frames to the Initiator.
* unidirectional traffic from the Initiator to the Responder: The
Initiator sends test frames to the Responder but the Responder
does not send test frames to the Initiator.
* unidirectional traffic from the Responder to the Initiator: The
Responder sends test frames to the Initiator but the Initiator
does not send test frames to the Responder.
If the Initiator sends test frames, then it uses pseudorandom source
port numbers and destination port numbers from the restricted port
number ranges. The responder receives the test frames, updates its
state table and processes the test frames as required by the given
measurement procedure (e.g. only counts them for throughput test,
handles timestamps for latency or PDV tests, etc.).
If the Responder sends test frames, then it uses the four tuples from
its state table. The reading order of the state table may follow
different policies (discussed in Section 4.6). The Initiator
receives the test frames, and processes them as required by the given
measurement procedure.
As for the actual measurement procedures, we RECOMMEND to use the
updated ones from Section 7 of [RFC8219].
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
4.6. Writing and Reading Order of the State Table
As for writing policy of the state table of the Responder, we
RECOMMEND round robin, because it ensures that its entries are
automatically kept fresh and thus there is no need to handle timeout.
The Responder can read its state table in various orders. We
RECOMMEND one of the following ones:
* round robin
* pseudorandom (with restriction!)
* random permutation (no position is repeated until all positions
are used).
Pseudorandom reading order of the state table MAY NOT be used with
unidirectional traffic from the Responder to the Initiator, because
if a four tuple is not used until timeout time, then its connection
is deleted from the connection tracking table of the DUT and a later
use of the given four tuple will cause frame loss. There is no such
problem, when bidirectional traffic is used, because then the state
table of the Responder is periodically refreshed.
We do not see any problem in the round robin reading order, because
the state table is filled using pseudorandom port numbers.
4.7. Peculiarities of Stateful Testing
Stateful testing involves some issues not present in stateless
testing.
4.7.1. Timeout Budget
Even though we do black box testing, one MUST consider timeout and
carefully manage timeout budget. For example, if the frame rate is
high enough, then every single entry of the state table of the
Responder is refreshed within timeout time and it prevents frame
sending with a stale four tuple. If the entries of the state table
are not refreshed (due to testing with single directional traffic
from the Responder to the Initiator) then using all four tuples
within timeout time can keep all connection tracking table entries of
the DUT alive.
Special care should be taken for the lower frame rate in the
preliminary phase.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
If the binary search (or the decreasing of the applied frame rates
during the frame loss rate test) results in a frame rate that is too
low to prevent the deletion of the connection tracking table entries
of the DUT due to timeout, then it results in the failure of the
consecutive tests (the binary search of the throughput test counts
down to zero).
4.7.2. Special Warning Against Non-zero Frame Loss Testing
Several network performance tester vendors include a parameter called
"Loss Tolerance" (or similar) for the throughput test and several
benchmarking professionals actually use nonzero values [TOL2001]. If
frames are lost during stateful testing (especially if it happens
during a test with unidirectional traffic from the Responder to the
Initiator) the refreshing of the corresponding connection tracking
table element of the DUT is not ensured and it may result in the loss
of further frames (not due to the low performance of the DUT, but due
to using a stale four tuple).
5. Implementation and Experience
The "stateful" branch of siitperf [SIITPERF] is an implementation of
this concept.
Our experience is partially documented in a paper currently under
review [LEN2021].
6. Limitations of using UDP as Transport Layer Protocol
Stateful NATxy solutions handle TCP and UDP differently, e.g.
iptables uses 30s timeout for UDP and 60s timeout for TCP. Thus
benchmarking results produced using UDP do not necessarily
characterize the performance of a NATxy gateway well enough, when
they are used for forwarding Internet traffic. As for the given
example, timeout values of the DUT may be adjusted, but it requires
extra consideration.
Other differences in handling UDP or TCP are also possible. Thus we
recommend that further investigations are to be performed in this
field.
As a mitigation of this problem, we recommend that testing with
protocols usig TCP (like HTTP and HTTPS) can be performed as
described in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance]. This approach also
solves the potential problem of protocol helpers may be present in
the stateful DUT.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Edwin Cordeiro, Lukasz Bromirski and
Sandor Repas for their comments.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not make any request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations
We have no further security considerations beyond that of [RFC8219].
Perhaps they should be cited here so that they be applied not only
for the benchmarking of IPv6 transition technologies, but also for
the benchmarking of stateful NATxy gateways.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
10.2. Informative References
[DUST1964] Durstenfeld, R., "Algorithm 235: Random
permutation", Communications of the ACM, vol. 7, no. 7,
p.420., DOI 10.1145/364520.364540, July 1964,
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/364520.364540>.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance]
Balarajah, B., Rossenhoevel, C., and B. Monkman,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device
Performance", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-09, 21 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-
performance-09.txt>.
[IIR2020] Kurahashi, T., Matsuzaki, Y., Sasaki, T., Saito, T., and
F. Tsutsuji, "Periodic observation report: Internet trends
as seen from IIJ infrastructure - 2020", Internet
Infrastructure Review, vol. 49, December 2020,
<https://www.iij.ad.jp/en/dev/iir/pdf/
iir_vol49_report_EN.pdf>.
[LEN2020] Lencse, G., "Adding RFC 4814 Random Port Feature to
Siitperf: Design, Implementation and Performance
Estimation", International Journal of Advances in
Telecommunications, Electrotechnics, Signals and Systems,
vol 9, no 3, pp. 18-26., DOI 10.11601/ijates.v9i3.291,
2020, <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/
publications/291-1113-1-PB.pdf>.
[LEN2021] Lencse, G., "Design and Implementation of a Software
Tester for Benchmarking Stateful NAT64 Gateways: Theory
and Practice of Extending Siitperf for Stateful
Tests", under review in Computer Communications, may be
revised or removed without notice, 2021,
<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/SFNAT64-
tester-for-review.pdf>.
[SIITPERF] Lencse, G., "Siitperf: An RFC 8219 compliant SIIT
(stateless NAT64) tester written in C++ using
DPDK", source code, available from GitHub, 2019-2021,
<https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf>.
[TOL2001] Tolly, K., "The real meaning of zero-loss testing", IT
World Canada, 2001,
<https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/kevin-tolly-the-
real-meaning-of-zero-loss-testing/33066>.
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking Stateful Gateways August 2021
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. 00
Initial version.
A.2. 01
Updates based on the comments received on the BMWG mailing list and
minor corrections.
Authors' Addresses
Gabor Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
Gyor
Egyetem ter 1.
H-9026
Hungary
Email: lencse@sze.hu
Keiichi Shima
IIJ Innovation Institute
Iidabashi Grand Bloom, 2-10-2 Fujimi, Tokyo
102-0071
Japan
Email: keiichi@iijlab.net
Lencse & Shima Expires 28 February 2022 [Page 14]