SubIP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarking draftietfbmwgprotectionterm02'txt draftiet - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Title: SubIP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarking draftietfbmwgprotectionterm02'txt draftiet


1
Sub-IP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance
Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.
txtdraft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.txt
BMWG, IETF-69ChicagoJuly 2007 Author Team
Poretsky, Papneja, Karthik, Vapiwala, LeRoux, Rao
2
Scope of Work Item

• Common terminology and metrics for benchmarking
  the performance of sub-IP layer protection
  mechanisms
• Benchmarks are measured at the IP-Layer
• avoids dependence on specific sub-IP protection
  mechanisms.
• Terminology applied to separate Methodology
  documents for different sub-IP layer protection
  mechanisms
• Multi-Protocol Label Switching Fast Reroute
  (MPLS-FRR)
• Automatic Protection Switching (APS)
• Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
• Stateful High Availability (HA)

Methodology For MPLS Protection
Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-02.t
xt
Benchmarking Terminology For Protection
Performance draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-02.tx
t
. . .
Other Methodologies
3
Terminology Changes from Rev 01 to 02

• Added new method for Failover Time calculation
• Timestamp-Based Method (TBM)
• Requires Payload to include Timestamp and
  Sequence Number
• Accounts for multiple failure modes Loss,
  Reorder, Duplicate
• Existing Methods were retained
• Time-Based Loss Method (TBLM)
• Packet-Based Loss Method (PBLM)
• Section 2, Existing Definitions, updated to
  include more terms
• Out-of-order Packet RFC 4689, section 3.3.2
• Duplicate Packet RFC 4689, section 3.3.3
• Packet Loss BMWG I-D, section 3.5
• Packet Reordering RFC 4737, section 3.3
• Introduction updated to better explain sequence
  of events
• Failover Event -gt Failure Detection -gt Failover
  -gt Restoration (Failover Recovery) -gt Reversion
  (optional).
• Cleaned-up some definitions based upon reviewers
  comments
• 3.3.4 Restoration 3.3.5 Reversion 3.4.4 Merge
  Node 3.4.5 Point of Local Repair

4
Methodology Changes from Rev 01 to 02

• Applied the new method to calculate failover -
  Timestamp Based Method (TBM)
• All other comments are previously incorporated.

5
Acknowledgements

• Thanks to BMWG-ers for support shown in the work
  item
• The authors wish to thank the following for their
  invaluable input to the merged document
• Curtis Villamizar
• Jean Philippe Vasseur
• Karu Ratnam
• Arun Gandhi
• Thanks to Agilent Technologies for their comments
  on this work item and for conforming to the
  methodology we proposed

6
Next Steps

• Incorporate any new comments from meeting and
  mailing list
• Ready for WGLC?

7
Backup SlideHistory/Background And Progress So
Far
Terminology For Protection
Benchmarking
Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
00
.
txt
-

October
2002
Mechanisms

draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
01
.
txt
-

April
2003
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
00
June
2003
Parallel Efforts
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
02
.
txt

October
2003
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
01
Oct
.
2003
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
02
.
txt

April
2005
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
02
Feb
2004
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
03
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
04
Created single work item
July
2005
with common Terminology
Common Terminology created With Effort
led by Kimura
-
san
Received numerous comments for
additional test cases and
benchmarking metrics
Terminology For Protection
e
l
b
a
Benchmarking

July
2005
c
i
l
p
p
draft
-
poretsky
-
protection
-
term
-
00
.
txt
A
Created
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
05
Feb
2006
December 2005 More Protection Scenarios Proposed
Under
Final WG Item
draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
Work Group Item 1. draft-ietf-bmwg-protectio
n-meth-02.txt 2. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-0
2.txt
Mailing List Decision
to Merge The two Efforts

Followed by action item
from Dallas IETF
WG Item
Final Decision
1
.
Significant Interest in the effort
2
.
Interest has reached peak
3
.
Formal Proposal Submitted to the Mailing list
4
.
/
Significant support received
5
.
New Merged Draft Submitted