RFC 8219
Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies
Pages: 30
Informational
Informational
Part 2 of 2 – Pages 11 to 30
7. Benchmarking Tests
The following sub-sections describe all recommended benchmarking tests.7.1. Throughput
Use Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] unmodified.7.2. Latency
Objective: To determine the latency. Typical latency is based on the definitions of latency from [RFC1242]. However, this memo provides a new measurement procedure. Procedure: Similar to [RFC2544], the throughput for DUT at each of the listed frame sizes SHOULD be determined. Send a stream of frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at least 120 seconds in duration.
Identifying tags SHOULD be included in at least 500 frames after 60 seconds. For each tagged frame, the time at which the frame was fully transmitted (timestamp A) and the time at which the frame was received (timestamp B) MUST be recorded. The latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the relevant definition from RFC 1242, namely, latency as defined for store and forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding devices. We recommend encoding the identifying tag in the payload of the frame. To be more exact, the identifier SHOULD be inserted after the UDP header. From the resulted (at least 500) latencies, two quantities SHOULD be calculated. One is the typical latency, which SHOULD be calculated with the following formula: TL = Median(Li) Where: o TL = the reported typical latency of the stream o Li = the latency for tagged frame i The other measure is the worst-case latency, which SHOULD be calculated with the following formula: WCL = L99.9thPercentile Where: o WCL = the reported worst-case latency o L99.9thPercentile = the 99.9th percentile of the stream-measured latencies The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL. Reporting Format: The report MUST state which definition of latency (from RFC 1242) was used for this test. The summarized latency results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be columns for the frame size, the rate at which the latency test was run for that frame size, the media types tested, and the resultant typical latency, and the worst-case latency values for each type of data stream tested. To account for the variation, the 1st and 99th percentiles of the 20
iterations MAY be reported in two separated columns. For a fine- grained analysis, the histogram (as exemplified in Section 4.4 of [RFC5481]) of one of the iterations MAY be displayed.7.3. Packet Delay Variation
[RFC5481] presents two metrics: Packet Delay Variation (PDV) and Inter Packet Delay Variation (IPDV). Measuring PDV is RECOMMENDED; for a fine-grained analysis of delay variation, IPDV measurements MAY be performed.7.3.1. PDV
Objective: To determine the Packet Delay Variation as defined in [RFC5481]. Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the one-way delay as described by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the PDV of the stream using the formula: PDV = D99.9thPercentile - Dmin Where: o D99.9thPercentile = the 99.9th percentile (as described in [RFC5481]) of the one-way delay for the stream o Dmin = the minimum one-way delay in the stream As recommended in [RFC2544], the test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported value being the median of the recorded values. Moreover, the 1st and 99th percentiles SHOULD be calculated to account for the variation of the dataset. Reporting Format: The PDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes and columns for the frame size and the applied frame rate for the tested media types. Two columns for the 1st and 99th percentile values MAY be displayed. Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement are milliseconds.
7.3.2. IPDV
Objective: To determine the Inter Packet Delay Variation as defined in [RFC5481]. Procedure: As described by [RFC2544], first determine the throughput for the DUT at each of the listed frame sizes. Send a stream of frames at a particular frame size through the DUT at the determined throughput rate to a specific destination. The stream SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration. Measure the one-way delay as described by [RFC3393] for all frames in the stream. Calculate the IPDV for each of the frames using the formula: IPDV(i) = D(i) - D(i-1) Where: o D(i) = the one-way delay of the i-th frame in the stream o D(i-1) = the one-way delay of (i-1)th frame in the stream Given the nature of IPDV, reporting a single number might lead to over-summarization. In this context, the report for each measurement SHOULD include three values: Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax. Where: o Dmin = the minimum IPDV in the stream o Dmed = the median IPDV of the stream o Dmax = the maximum IPDV in the stream The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times. To summarize the 20 repetitions, for each of the three (Dmin, Dmed, and Dmax), the median value SHOULD be reported. Reporting format: The median for the three proposed values SHOULD be reported. The IPDV results SHOULD be reported in a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. The columns SHOULD include the frame size and associated frame rate for the tested media types and sub-columns for the three proposed reported values. Following the recommendations of [RFC5481], the RECOMMENDED units of measurement are milliseconds.
7.4. Frame Loss Rate
Use Section 26.3 of [RFC2544] unmodified.7.5. Back-to-Back Frames
Use Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] unmodified.7.6. System Recovery
Use Section 26.5 of [RFC2544] unmodified.7.7. Reset
Use Section 4 of [RFC6201] unmodified.8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition Technologies
This section describes additional tests dedicated to stateful IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this section, the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test parameters recommendations presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC3511]. The following additional tests SHOULD be performed.8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity
Use Section 5.2 of [RFC3511] unmodified.8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate
Use Section 5.3 of [RFC3511] unmodified.9. DNS Resolution Performance
This section describes benchmarking tests dedicated to DNS64 (see [RFC6147]), used as DNS support for single-translation technologies such as NAT64.
9.1. Test and Traffic Setup
The test setup in Figure 3 follows the setup proposed for single- translation IPv6 transition technologies in Figure 1. 1:AAAA query +--------------------+ +------------| |<-------------+ | |IPv6 Tester IPv4| | | +-------->| |----------+ | | | +--------------------+ 3:empty | | | | 6:synt'd AAAA, | | | | AAAA +--------------------+ 5:valid A| | | +---------| |<---------+ | | |IPv6 DUT IPv4| | +----------->| (DNS64) |--------------+ +--------------------+ 2:AAAA query, 4:A query Figure 3: Test Setup 3 (DNS64) The test traffic SHOULD be composed of the following messages. 1. Query for the AAAA record of a domain name (from client to DNS64 server) 2. Query for the AAAA record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server to authoritative DNS server) 3. Empty AAAA record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 server) 4. Query for the A record of the same domain name (from DNS64 server to authoritative DNS server) 5. Valid A record answer (from authoritative DNS server to DNS64 server) 6. Synthesized AAAA record answer (from DNS64 server to client) The Tester plays the role of DNS client as well as authoritative DNS server. It MAY be realized as a single physical device, or alternatively, two physical devices MAY be used. Please note that: o If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit, then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are omitted).
o If the domain name has a AAAA record, then it is returned in step
3 by the authoritative DNS server, steps 4 and 5 are omitted, and
the DNS64 server does not synthesize a AAAA record but returns the
received AAAA record to the client.
o As for the IP version used between the Tester and the DUT, IPv6
MUST be used between the client and the DNS64 server (as a DNS64
server provides service for an IPv6-only client), but either IPv4
or IPv6 MAY be used between the DNS64 server and the authoritative
DNS server.
9.2. Benchmarking DNS Resolution Performance
Objective: To determine DNS64 performance by means of the maximum
number of successfully processed DNS requests per second.
Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate
to the DUT, and then count the replies from the DUT that are received
in time (within a predefined timeout period from the sending time of
the corresponding query, having the default value 1 second) and that
are valid (contain a AAAA record). If the count of sent queries is
equal to the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is
raised, and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than
queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced, and the test
is rerun. The duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds.
This will reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able
to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus also
utilizing the timeout time for answering them. For the same reason,
no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. For further
considerations, see [Lencse1].
The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest
rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to
the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment.
The test SHOULD be repeated at least 20 times, and the median and
1st/99th percentiles of the number of processed DNS queries per
second SHOULD be calculated.
Details and parameters:
1. Caching
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain different domain names
(or domain names MUST NOT be repeated before the cache of the DUT
is exhausted). Then, new tests MAY be executed when domain names
are 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% cached. Ensuring that a record
is cached requires repeating a domain name both "late enough"
after the first query to be already resolved and be present in
the cache and "early enough" to be still present in the cache.
2. Existence of a AAAA record
First, all the DNS queries MUST contain domain names that do not
have a AAAA record and have exactly one A record. Then, new
tests MAY be executed when 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of domain
names have a AAAA record.
Please note that the two conditions above are orthogonal; thus, all
their combinations are possible and MAY be tested. The testing with
0% cached domain names and with 0% existing AAAA records is REQUIRED,
and the other combinations are OPTIONAL. (When all the domain names
are cached, then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
domain names have AAAA records; thus, these combinations are not
worth testing one by one.)
Reporting format: The primary result of the DNS64 test is the median
of the number of processed DNS queries per second measured with the
above mentioned "0% + 0% combination". The median SHOULD be
complemented with the 1st and 99th percentiles to show the stability
of the result. If optional tests are done, the median and the 1st
and 99th percentiles MAY be presented in a two-dimensional table
where the dimensions are the proportion of the repeated domain names
and the proportion of the DNS names having AAAA records. The two
table headings SHOULD contain these percentage values.
Alternatively, the results MAY be presented as a corresponding two-
dimensional graph. In this case, the graph SHOULD show the median
values with the percentiles as error bars. From both the table and
the graph, one-dimensional excerpts MAY be made at any given fixed-
percentage value of the other dimension. In this case, the fixed
value MUST be given together with a one-dimensional table or graph.
9.2.1. Requirements for the Tester
Before a Tester can be used for testing a DUT at rate r queries per
second with t seconds timeout, it MUST perform a self-test in order
to exclude the possibility that the poor performance of the Tester
itself influences the results. To perform a self-test, the Tester is
looped back (leaving out DUT), and its authoritative DNS server
subsystem is configured to be able to answer all the AAAA record
queries. To pass the self-test, the Tester SHOULD be able to answer
AAAA record queries at rate of 2*(r+delta) within a 0.25*t timeout,
where the value of delta is at least 0.1.
Explanation: When performing DNS64 testing, each AAAA record query may result in at most two queries sent by the DUT: the first for a AAAA record and the second for an A record (they are both sent when there is no cache hit and also no AAAA record exists). The parameters above guarantee that the authoritative DNS server subsystem of the DUT is able to answer the queries at the required frequency using up not more than half of the timeout time. Note: A sample open-source test program, dns64perf++, is available from [Dns64perf] and is documented in [Lencse2]. It implements only the client part of the Tester and should be used together with an authoritative DNS server implementation, e.g., BIND, NSD, or YADIFA. Its experimental extension for testing caching is available from [Lencse3] and is documented in [Lencse4].10. Overload Scalability
Scalability has been often discussed; however, in the context of network devices, a formal definition or a measurement method has not yet been proposed. In this context, we can define overload scalability as the ability of each transition technology to accommodate network growth. Poor scalability usually leads to poor performance. Considering this, overload scalability can be measured by quantifying the network performance degradation associated with an increased number of network flows. The following subsections describe how the test setups can be modified to create network growth and how the associated performance degradation can be quantified.10.1. Test Setup
The test setups defined in Section 4 have to be modified to create network growth.10.1.1. Single-Translation Transition Technologies
In the case of single-translation transition technologies, the network growth can be generated by increasing the number of network flows (NFs) generated by the Tester machine (see Figure 4).
+-------------------------+ +------------|NF1 NF1|<-------------+ | +---------|NF2 Tester NF2|<----------+ | | | ...| | | | | | +-----|NFn NFn|<------+ | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | +---->|NFn NFn|-------+ | | | | ...| DUT | | | | +-------->|NF2 (translator) NF2|-----------+ | +----------->|NF1 NF1|--------------+ +-------------------------+ Figure 4: Test Setup 4 (Single DUT with Increased Network Flows)10.1.2. Encapsulation and Double-Translation Transition Technologies
Similarly, for the encapsulation and double-translation transition technologies, a multi-flow setup is recommended. Considering a multipoint-to-point scenario, for most transition technologies, one of the edge nodes is designed to support more than one connecting device. Hence, the recommended test setup is an n:1 design, where n is the number of client DUTs connected to the same server DUT (see Figure 5). +-------------------------+ +--------------------|NF1 NF1|<--------------+ | +-----------------|NF2 Tester NF2|<-----------+ | | | ...| | | | | | +-------------|NFn NFn|<-------+ | | | | | +-------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | | | | +--->| NFn DUT n NFn |--->|NFn NFn| ---+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | | | | | ... | | | | | | +-----------------+ | DUT n+1 | | | | +------->| NF2 DUT 2 NF2 |--->|NF2 NF2|--------+ | | +-----------------+ | | | | +-----------------+ | | | +---------->| NF1 DUT 1 NF1 |--->|NF1 NF1|-----------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ Figure 5: Test Setup 5 (DUAL DUT with Increased Network Flows)
This test setup can help to quantify the scalability of the server device. However, for testing the overload scalability of the client DUTs, additional recommendations are needed. For encapsulation transition technologies, an m:n setup can be created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client device and n the number of client devices connected to the same server device. For translation-based transition technologies, the client devices can be separately tested with n network flows using the test setup presented in Figure 4.10.2. Benchmarking Performance Degradation
10.2.1. Network Performance Degradation with Simultaneous Load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n parallel and simultaneous network flows. Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have to be performed for one network flow. The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the network flows are started simultaneously. The performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow (single flow) results and the n-flow results, using the following formula: Xn - X1 Xpd = ----------- * 100, where: X1 = result for 1-flow X1 Xn = result for n-flows This formula SHOULD be applied only for "lower is better" benchmarks (e.g., latency). For "higher is better" benchmarks (e.g., throughput), the following formula is RECOMMENDED: X1 - Xn Xpd = ----------- * 100, where: X1 = result for 1-flow X1 Xn = result for n-flows As a guideline for the maximum number of flows n, the value can be deduced by measuring the Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity as described by [RFC3511], following the test setups specified by Section 4.
Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table SHOULD also state the applied frame rate. In the case of benchmarks for which more than one value is reported (e.g., IPDV, discussed in Section 7.3.2), a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.10.2.2. Network Performance Degradation with Incremental Load
Objective: To quantify the performance degradation introduced by n parallel and incrementally started network flows. Procedure: First, the benchmarking tests presented in Section 7 have to be performed for one network flow. The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the network flows are started incrementally in succession, each after time t. In other words, if flow i is started at time x, flow i+1 will be started at time x+t. Considering the time t, the time duration of each iteration must be extended with the time necessary to start all the flows, namely, (n-1)xt. The measurement for the first flow SHOULD be at least 60 seconds in duration. The performance degradation of the x benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results and the n-flow results, using the formula presented in Section 10.2.1. Intermediary degradation points for 1/4*n, 1/2*n, and 3/4*n MAY also be performed. Reporting Format: The performance degradation SHOULD be expressed as a percentage. The number of tested parallel flows n MUST be clearly specified. For each of the performed benchmarking tests, there SHOULD be a table containing a column for each frame size. The table SHOULD also state the applied frame rate and time duration T, which is used as an incremental step between the network flows. The units of measurement for T SHOULD be seconds. A column for the intermediary degradation points MAY also be displayed. In the case of benchmarks for which more than one value is reported (e.g., IPDV, discussed in Section 7.3.2), a column for each of the values SHOULD be included.11. NAT44 and NAT66
Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this document, the benchmarking methodology associated with single- translation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed to
benchmark implementations that use NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior described by [RFC7857]) and implementations that use NAT66 (as defined by [RFC6296]).12. Summarizing Function and Variation
To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using the tests presented in Sections 7 through 9, multiple test iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare the results obtained across different iterations. However, over-summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number. Measuring the variation (dispersion index) can be used to counter the over-summarization effect. Empirical data obtained following the proposed methodology can also offer insights on which summarizing function would fit better. To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as a suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the recommendations of Section 11.3 of [RFC2330]. For a fine-grained analysis of the frequency distribution of the data, histograms or cumulative distribution function plots can be employed.13. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections above. The benchmarking network topology will be 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. Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT or System Under Test (SUT). 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 in production networks.
14. IANA Considerations
The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:2::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. Thus, no action is requested.15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, July 1991, <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>. [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>. [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin, "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 3511, DOI 10.17487/RFC3511, April 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3511>. [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>. [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera, "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.15.2. Informative References
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2663>. [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>. [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>. [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>. [RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569, January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>. [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>. [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>. [RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, DOI 10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6219>. [RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>. [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>. [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>. [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>. [RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I. Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual- Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>. [RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597, DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>. [RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7857] Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar, S., and K. Naito, "Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements", BCP 127, RFC 7857, DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, April 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>. [RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915, DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>. [Dns64perf] Bakai, D., "A C++11 DNS64 performance tester", <https://github.com/bakaid/dns64perfpp>. [ietf95pres] Georgescu, M., "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", IETF 95 Proceedings, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 2016, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/ slides-95-bmwg-2.pdf>. [Lencse1] Lencse, G., Georgescu, M., and Y. Kadobayashi, "Benchmarking Methodology for DNS64 Servers", Computer Communications, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 162-175, DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2017.06.004, September 2017, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0140366416305904?via%3Dihub> [Lencse2] Lencse, G. and D. Bakai, "Design and Implementation of a Test Program for Benchmarking DNS64 Servers", IEICE Transactions on Communications, Vol. E100-B, No. 6, pp. 948-954, DOI 10.1587/transcom.2016EBN0007, June 2017, <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transcom/E100.B/ 6/E100.B_2016EBN0007/_article>. [Lencse3] dns64perfppc, <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/dns64perfppc/>. [Lencse4] Lencse, G., "Enabling Dns64perf++ for Benchmarking the Caching Performance of DNS64 Servers", unpublished, review version, <http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ IEICE-2016-dns64perfppc-for-review.pdf>.
[IEEE802.1AC] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Service Definition", IEEE 802.1AC. [IEEE802.1Q] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q.
Appendix A. Theoretical Maximum Frame Rates
This appendix describes the recommended calculation formulas for the theoretical maximum frame rates to be employed over Ethernet as example media. The formula takes into account the frame size overhead created by the encapsulation or translation process. For example, the 6in4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213] adds 20 bytes of overhead to each frame. Considering X to be the frame size and O to be the frame size overhead created by the encapsulation or translation process, the maximum theoretical frame rate for Ethernet can be calculated using the following formula: Line Rate (bps) ------------------------------------ (8 bits/byte) * (X+O+20) bytes/frame The calculation is based on the formula recommended by [RFC5180] in Appendix A.1. As an example, the frame rate recommended for testing a 6in4 implementation over 10 Mb/s Ethernet with 64 bytes frames is: 10,000,000 (bps) -------------------------------------- = 12,019 fps (8 bits/byte) * (64+20+20) bytes/frame The complete list of recommended frame rates for 6in4 encapsulation can be found in the following table: +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ | Frame size | 10 Mb/s | 100 Mb/s | 1000 Mb/s | 10000 Mb/s | | (bytes) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | (fps) | +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+ | 64 | 12,019 | 120,192 | 1,201,923 | 12,019,231 | | 128 | 7,440 | 74,405 | 744,048 | 7,440,476 | | 256 | 4,223 | 42,230 | 422,297 | 4,222,973 | | 512 | 2,264 | 22,645 | 226,449 | 2,264,493 | | 678 | 1,740 | 17,409 | 174,094 | 1,740,947 | | 1024 | 1,175 | 11,748 | 117,481 | 1,174,812 | | 1280 | 947 | 9,470 | 94,697 | 946,970 | | 1518 | 802 | 8,023 | 80,231 | 802,311 | | 1522 | 800 | 8,003 | 80,026 | 800,256 | | 2048 | 599 | 5,987 | 59,866 | 598,659 | | 4096 | 302 | 3,022 | 30,222 | 302,224 | | 8192 | 152 | 1,518 | 15,185 | 151,846 | | 9216 | 135 | 1,350 | 13,505 | 135,048 | +------------+---------+----------+-----------+------------+
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Youki Kadobayashi and Hiroaki Hazeyama for their constant feedback and support. The thanks should be extended to the NECOMA project members for their continuous support. We thank Emanuel Popa, Ionut Spirlea, and the RCS&RDS IP/MPLS Backbone Team for their support and insights. We thank Scott Bradner for the useful suggestions and note that portions of text from Scott's documents were used in this memo (e.g., the "Latency" section). A big thank you to Al Morton and Fred Baker for their detailed review of the document and very helpful suggestions. Other helpful comments and suggestions were offered by Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Andrew McGregor, Nalini Elkins, Kaname Nishizuka, Yasuhiro Ohara, Masataka Mawatari, Kostas Pentikousis, Bela Almasi, Tim Chown, Paul Emmerich, and Stenio Fernandes. A special thank you to the RFC Editor Team for their thorough editorial review and helpful suggestions.Authors' Addresses
Marius Georgescu RCS&RDS Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75 Bucharest 030167 Romania Phone: +40 31 005 0979 Email: marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro Liviu Pislaru RCS&RDS Strada Dr. Nicolae D. Staicovici 71-75 Bucharest 030167 Romania Phone: +40 31 005 0979 Email: liviu.pislaru@rcs-rds.ro Gabor Lencse Szechenyi Istvan University Egyetem ter 1. Gyor Hungary Phone: +36 20 775 8267 Email: lencse@sze.hu