<pre>Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2544                            Harvard University
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc1944">1944</a>                                               J. McQuaid
Category: Informational                                 NetScout Systems
                                                              March 1999


       <span class="h1">Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices</span>

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

IESG Note

   This document is a republication of <a href="./rfc1944">RFC 1944</a> correcting the values
   for the IP addresses which were assigned to be used as the default
   addresses for networking test equipment. (See section C.2.2 ).  This
   RFC replaces and obsoletes <a href="./rfc1944">RFC 1944</a>.

Abstract

   This document discusses and defines a number of tests that may be
   used to describe the performance characteristics of a network
   interconnecting  device.  In addition to defining the tests this
   document also describes specific formats for reporting the results of
   the tests.  <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> lists the tests and conditions that we believe
   should be included for specific cases and gives additional
   information about testing practices.  <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a> is a reference
   listing of maximum frame rates to be used with specific frame sizes
   on various media and <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a> gives some examples of frame formats
   to be used in testing.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>

   Vendors often engage in "specsmanship" in an attempt to give their
   products a better position in the marketplace.  This often involves
   "smoke &amp; mirrors" to confuse the potential users of the products.







<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   This document defines a specific set of tests that vendors can use to
   measure and report the performance characteristics of network
   devices.  The results of these tests will provide the user comparable
   data from different vendors with which to evaluate these devices.

   A previous document, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
   Interconnect Devices" (<a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>), defined many of the terms that are
   used in this document.  The terminology document should be consulted
   before attempting to make use of this document.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Real world</span>

   In producing this document the authors attempted to keep in mind the
   requirement that apparatus to perform the described tests must
   actually be built.  We do not know of "off the shelf" equipment
   available to implement all of the tests but it is our opinion that
   such equipment can be constructed.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Tests to be run</span>

   There are a number of tests described in this document.  Not all of
   the tests apply to all types of devices under test (DUTs). Vendors
   should perform all of the tests that can be supported by a specific
   type of product.  The authors understand that it will take a
   considerable period of time to perform all of the recommended tests
   nder  all of the recommended conditions. We believe that the results
   are worth the effort.  <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> lists some of the tests and
   conditions that we believe should be included for specific cases.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Evaluating the results</span>

   Performing all of the recommended tests will result in a great deal
   of data. Much of this data will not apply to the evaluation of the
   devices under each circumstance.  For example, the rate at which a
   router forwards IPX frames will be of little use in selecting a
   router for an environment that does not (and will not) support that
   protocol.  Evaluating even that data which is relevant to a
   particular network installation will require experience which may not
   be readily available. Furthermore, selection of the tests to be run
   and evaluation of the test data must be done with an understanding of
   generally accepted testing practices regarding repeatability,
   variance and statistical significance of small numbers of trials.









<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Requirements</span>

   In this document, the words that are used to define the significance
   of each particular requirement are capitalized. These words are:

      * "MUST" This word, or the words "REQUIRED" and "SHALL" mean that
         the item is an absolute requirement of the specification.

      * "SHOULD" This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that
         there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
         ignore this item, but the full implications should be
         understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing a
         different course.

       * "MAY" This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this
         item is truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the
         item because a particular marketplace requires it or because it
         enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the
         same item.

   An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
   of the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements.  An
   implementation that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD
   requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally
   compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all
   the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be
   "conditionally compliant".

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Test set up</span>

   The ideal way to implement this series of tests is to use a tester
   with both transmitting and receiving ports.  Connections are made
   from the sending ports of the tester to the receiving ports of the
   DUT and from the sending ports of the DUT back to the tester. (see
   Figure 1)  Since the tester both sends the test traffic and receives
   it back, after the traffic has been forwarded but the DUT, the tester
   can easily determine if all of the transmitted packets were received
   and verify that the correct packets were received.  The same
   functionality can be obtained with separate transmitting and
   receiving devices (see Figure 2) but unless they are remotely
   controlled by some computer in a way that simulates the single
   tester, the labor required to accurately perform some of the tests
   (particularly the throughput test) can be prohibitive.








<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


                            +------------+
                            |            |
               +------------|  tester    |&lt;-------------+
               |            |            |              |
               |            +------------+              |
               |                                        |
               |            +------------+              |
               |            |            |              |
               +-----------&gt;|    DUT     |--------------+
                            |            |
                            +------------+
                              Figure 1

         +--------+         +------------+          +----------+
         |        |         |            |          |          |
         | sender |--------&gt;|    DUT     |---------&gt;| receiver |
         |        |         |            |          |          |
         +--------+         +------------+          +----------+
                              Figure 2

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a> Test set up for multiple media types</span>

   Two different setups could be used to test a DUT which is used in
   real-world networks to connect networks of differing media type,
   local Ethernet to a backbone FDDI ring for example.  The tester could
   support both media types in which case the set up shown in Figure 1
   would be used.

   Two identical DUTs are used in the other test set up. (see Figure 3)
   In many cases this set up may more accurately simulate the real
   world.  For example, connecting two LANs together with a WAN link or
   high speed backbone.  This set up would not be as good at simulating
   a system where clients on a Ethernet LAN were interacting with a
   server on an FDDI backbone.

                               +-----------+
                               |           |
         +---------------------|  tester   |&lt;---------------------+
         |                     |           |                      |
         |                     +-----------+                      |
         |                                                        |
         |        +----------+               +----------+         |
         |        |          |               |          |         |
         +-------&gt;|  DUT 1   |--------------&gt;|   DUT 2  |---------+
                  |          |               |          |
                  +----------+               +----------+

                                  Figure 3



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>



<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. DUT set up</span>

   Before starting to perform the tests, the DUT to be tested MUST be
   configured following the instructions provided to the user.
   Specifically, it is expected that all of the supported protocols will
   be configured and enabled during this set up (See <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>).  It is
   expected that all of the tests will be run without changing the
   configuration or setup of the DUT in any way other than that required
   to do the specific test.  For example, it is not acceptable to change
   the size of frame handling buffers between tests of frame handling
   rates or to disable all but one transport protocol when testing the
   throughput of that protocol.  It is necessary to modify the
   configuration when starting a test to determine the effect of filters
   on throughput, but the only change MUST be to enable the specific
   filter. The DUT set up SHOULD include the normally recommended
   routing update intervals and keep alive frequency.  The specific
   version of the software and the exact DUT configuration, including
   what functions are disabled, used during the tests MUST be included
   as part of the report of the results.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Frame formats</span>

   The formats of the test frames to use for TCP/IP over Ethernet are
   shown in <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a>: Test Frame Formats.  These exact frame formats
   SHOULD be used in the tests described in this document for this
   protocol/media combination and that these frames will be used as a
   template for testing other protocol/media combinations.  The specific
   formats that are used to define the test frames for a particular test
   series MUST be included in the report of the results.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Frame sizes</span>

   All of the described tests SHOULD be performed at a number of frame
   sizes. Specifically, the sizes SHOULD include the maximum and minimum
   legitimate sizes for the protocol under test on the media under test
   and enough sizes in between to be able to get a full characterization
   of the DUT performance.  Except where noted, at least five frame
   sizes SHOULD be tested for each test condition.

   Theoretically the minimum size UDP Echo request frame would consist
   of an IP header (minimum length 20 octets), a UDP header (8 octets)
   and whatever MAC level header is required by the media in use.  The
   theoretical maximum frame size is determined by the size of the
   length field in the IP header.  In almost all cases the actual
   maximum and minimum sizes are determined by the limitations of the
   media.




<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   In theory it would be ideal to distribute the frame sizes in a way
   that would evenly distribute the theoretical frame rates.  These
   recommendations incorporate this theory but specify frame sizes which
   are easy to understand and remember.  In addition, many of the same
   frame sizes are specified on each of the media types to allow for
   easy performance comparisons.

   Note: The inclusion of an unrealistically small frame size on some of
   the media types (i.e. with little or no space for data) is to help
   characterize the per-frame processing overhead of the DUT.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a> Frame sizes to be used on Ethernet</span>

       64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518

   These sizes include the maximum and minimum frame sizes permitted by
   the Ethernet standard and a selection of sizes between these extremes
   with a finer granularity for the smaller frame sizes and higher frame
   rates.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a> Frame sizes to be used on 4Mb and 16Mb token ring</span>

       54, 64, 128, 256, 1024, 1518, 2048, 4472

   The frame size recommendations for token ring assume that there is no
   RIF field in the frames of routed protocols.  A RIF field would be
   present in any direct source route bridge performance test.  The
   minimum size frame for UDP on token ring is 54 octets.  The maximum
   size of 4472 octets is recommended for 16Mb token ring instead of the
   theoretical size of 17.9Kb because of the size limitations imposed by
   many token ring interfaces.  The reminder of the sizes are selected
   to permit direct comparisons with other types of media.  An IP (i.e.
   not UDP) frame may be used in addition if a higher data rate is
   desired, in which case the minimum frame size is 46 octets.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.3" href="#section-9.3">9.3</a> Frame sizes to be used on FDDI</span>

       54, 64, 128, 256, 1024, 1518, 2048, 4472

   The minimum size frame for UDP on FDDI is 53 octets, the minimum size
   of 54 is recommended to allow direct comparison to token ring
   performance.  The maximum size of 4472 is recommended instead of the
   theoretical maximum size of 4500 octets to permit the same type of
   comparison. An IP (i.e. not UDP) frame may be used in addition if a
   higher data rate is desired, in which case the minimum frame size is
   45 octets.





<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.4" href="#section-9.4">9.4</a> Frame sizes in the presence of disparate MTUs</span>

   When the interconnect DUT supports connecting links with disparate
   MTUs, the frame sizes for the link with the *larger* MTU SHOULD be
   used, up to the limit of the protocol being tested. If the
   interconnect DUT does not support the fragmenting of frames in the
   presence of MTU mismatch, the forwarding rate for that frame size
   shall be reported as zero.

   For example, the test of IP forwarding with a bridge or router that
   joins FDDI and Ethernet should use the frame sizes of FDDI when going
   from the FDDI to the Ethernet link. If the bridge does not support IP
   fragmentation, the forwarding rate for those frames too large for
   Ethernet should be reported as zero.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Verifying received frames</span>

   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 any case, 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 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.
   This functionality is required for some of the described tests.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. Modifiers</span>

   It might be useful to know the DUT performance under a number of
   conditions; some of these conditions are noted below.  The reported
   results SHOULD include as many of these conditions as the test
   equipment is able to generate.  The suite of tests SHOULD be first
   run without any modifying conditions and then repeated under each of
   the conditions separately.  To preserve the ability to compare the
   results of these tests any frames that are required to generate the
   modifying conditions (management queries for example) will be
   included in the same data stream as the normal test frames in place
   of one of the test frames and not be supplied to the DUT on a
   separate network port.






<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a> Broadcast frames</span>

   In most router designs special processing is required when frames
   addressed to the hardware broadcast address are received.  In bridges
   (or in bridge mode on routers) these broadcast frames must be flooded
   to a number of ports.  The stream of test frames SHOULD be augmented
   with 1% frames addressed to the hardware broadcast address.  The
   frames sent to the broadcast address should be of a type that the
   router will not need to process.  The aim of this test is to
   determine if there is any effect on the forwarding rate of the other
   data in the stream.  The specific frames that should be used are
   included in the test frame format document. The broadcast frames
   SHOULD be evenly distributed throughout the data stream, for example,
   every 100th frame.

   The same test SHOULD be performed on bridge-like DUTs but in this
   case the broadcast packets will be processed and flooded to all
   outputs.

   It is understood that a level of broadcast frames of 1% is much
   higher than many networks experience but, as in drug toxicity
   evaluations, the higher level is required to be able to gage the
   effect which would otherwise often fall within the normal variability
   of the system performance.  Due to design factors some test equipment
   will not be able to generate a level of alternate frames this low.
   In these cases the percentage SHOULD be as small as the equipment can
   provide and that the actual level be described in the report of the
   test results.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a> Management frames</span>

   Most data networks now make use of management protocols such as SNMP.
   In many environments there can be a number of management stations
   sending queries to the same DUT at the same time.

   The stream of test frames SHOULD be augmented with one management
   query as the first frame sent each second during the duration of the
   trial.  The result of the query must fit into one response frame. The
   response frame SHOULD be verified by the test equipment. One example
   of the specific query frame that should be used is shown in <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix</a>
   <a href="#appendix-C">C</a>.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.3" href="#section-11.3">11.3</a> Routing update frames</span>

   The processing of dynamic routing protocol updates could have a
   significant impact on the ability of a router to forward data frames.
   The stream of test frames SHOULD be augmented with one routing update
   frame transmitted as the first frame transmitted during the trial.



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   Routing update frames SHOULD be sent at the rate specified in
   <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a> for the specific routing protocol being used in the test.
   Two routing update frames are defined in <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a> for the TCP/IP
   over Ethernet example.  The routing frames are designed to change the
   routing to a number of networks that are not involved in the
   forwarding of the test data.  The first frame sets the routing table
   state to "A", the second one changes the state to "B".  The frames
   MUST be alternated during the trial.

   The test SHOULD verify that the routing update was processed by the
   DUT.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.4" href="#section-11.4">11.4</a> Filters</span>

   Filters are added to routers and bridges to selectively inhibit the
   forwarding of frames that would normally be forwarded.  This is
   usually done to implement security controls on the data that is
   accepted between one area and another. Different products have
   different capabilities to implement filters.

   The DUT SHOULD be first configured to add one filter condition and
   the tests performed.  This filter SHOULD permit the forwarding of the
   test data stream. In routers this filter SHOULD be of the form:

      forward input_protocol_address to output_protocol_address

   In bridges the filter SHOULD be of the form:

      forward destination_hardware_address

   The DUT SHOULD be then reconfigured to implement a total of 25
   filters.  The first 24 of these filters SHOULD be of the form:

      block input_protocol_address to output_protocol_address

   The 24 input and output protocol addresses SHOULD not be any that are
   represented in the test data stream.  The last filter SHOULD permit
   the forwarding of the test data stream.  By "first" and "last" we
   mean to ensure that in the second case, 25 conditions must be checked
   before the data frames will match the conditions that permit the
   forwarding of the frame. Of course, if the DUT reorders the filters
   or does not use a linear scan of the filter rules the effect of the
   sequence in which the filters are input is properly lost.

   The exact filters configuration command lines used SHOULD be included
   with the report of the results.





<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                      [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.4.1" href="#section-11.4.1">11.4.1</a> Filter Addresses</span>

   Two sets of filter addresses are required, one for the single filter
   case and one for the 25 filter case.

   The single filter case should permit traffic from IP address
   198.18.1.2 to IP address 198.19.65.2 and deny all other traffic.

   The 25 filter case should follow the following sequence.

         deny aa.ba.1.1 to aa.ba.100.1
         deny aa.ba.2.2 to aa.ba.101.2
         deny aa.ba.3.3 to aa.ba.103.3
           ...
         deny aa.ba.12.12 to aa.ba.112.12
         allow aa.bc.1.2 to aa.bc.65.1
         deny aa.ba.13.13 to aa.ba.113.13
         deny aa.ba.14.14 to aa.ba.114.14
           ...
         deny aa.ba.24.24 to aa.ba.124.24
         deny all else


   All previous filter conditions should be cleared from the router
   before this sequence is entered.  The sequence is selected to test to
   see if the router sorts the filter conditions or accepts them in the
   order that they were entered.  Both of these procedures will result
   in a greater impact on performance than will some form of hash
   coding.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>. Protocol addresses</span>

   It is easier to implement these tests using a single logical stream
   of data, with one source protocol address and one destination
   protocol address, and for some conditions like the filters described
   above, a practical requirement. Networks in the real world are not
   limited to single streams of data. The test suite SHOULD be first run
   with a single protocol (or hardware for bridge tests) source and
   destination address pair.  The tests SHOULD then be repeated with
   using a random destination address.  While testing routers the
   addresses SHOULD be random and uniformly distributed over a range of
   256 networks and random and uniformly distributed over the full MAC
   range for bridges.  The specific address ranges to use for IP are
   shown in <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a>.







<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-13" href="#section-13">13</a>. Route Set Up</span>

   It is not reasonable that all of the routing information necessary to
   forward the test stream, especially in the multiple address case,
   will be manually set up.  At the start of each trial a routing update
   MUST be sent to the DUT. This routing update MUST include all of the
   network addresses that will be required for the trial.  All of the
   addresses SHOULD resolve to the same "next-hop". Normally this will
   be the address of the receiving side of the test equipment. This
   routing update will have to be repeated at the interval required by
   the routing protocol being used.  An example of the format and
   repetition interval of the update frames is given in <a href="#appendix-C">Appendix C</a>.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-14" href="#section-14">14</a>. Bidirectional traffic</span>

   Normal network activity is not all in a single direction.  To test
   the bidirectional performance of a DUT, the test series SHOULD be run
   with the same data rate being offered from each direction. The sum of
   the data rates should not exceed the theoretical limit for the media.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-15" href="#section-15">15</a>. Single stream path</span>

   The full suite of tests SHOULD be run along with whatever modifier
   conditions that are relevant using a single input and output network
   port on the DUT. If the internal design of the DUT has multiple
   distinct pathways, for example, multiple interface cards each with
   multiple network ports, then all possible types of pathways SHOULD be
   tested separately.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-16" href="#section-16">16</a>. Multi-port</span>

   Many current router and bridge products provide many network ports in
   the same module. In performing these tests first half of the ports
   are designated as "input ports" and half are designated as "output
   ports".  These ports SHOULD be evenly distributed across the DUT
   architecture. For example if a DUT has two interface cards each of
   which has four ports, two ports on each interface card are designated
   as input and two are designated as output.  The specified tests are
   run using the same data rate being offered to each of the input
   ports.  The addresses in the input data streams SHOULD be set so that
   a frame will be directed to each of the output ports in sequence so
   that all "output" ports will get an even distribution of packets from
   this input.  The same configuration MAY be used to perform a
   bidirectional multi-stream test.  In this case all of the ports are
   considered both input and output ports and each data stream MUST
   consist of frames addressed to all of the other ports.





<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   Consider the following 6 port DUT:

                              --------------
                     ---------| in A  out X|--------
                     ---------| in B  out Y|--------
                     ---------| in C  out Z|--------
                              --------------

   The addressing of the data streams for each of the inputs SHOULD be:

    stream sent to input A:
      packet to out X, packet to out Y, packet to out Z
    stream sent to input B:
      packet to out X, packet to out Y, packet to out Z
    stream sent to input C
      packet to out X, packet to out Y, packet to out Z

   Note that these streams each follow the same sequence so that 3
   packets will arrive at output X at the same time, then 3 packets at
   Y, then 3 packets at Z. This procedure ensures that, as in the real
   world, the DUT will have to deal with multiple packets addressed to
   the same output at the same time.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-17" href="#section-17">17</a>. Multiple protocols</span>

   This document does not address the issue of testing the effects of a
   mixed protocol environment other than to suggest that if such tests
   are wanted then frames SHOULD be distributed between all of the test
   protocols.  The distribution MAY approximate the conditions on the
   network in which the DUT would be used.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-18" href="#section-18">18</a>. Multiple frame sizes</span>

   This document does not address the issue of testing the effects of a
   mixed frame size environment other than to suggest that if such tests
   are wanted then frames SHOULD be distributed between all of the
   listed sizes for the protocol under test.  The distribution MAY
   approximate the conditions on the network in which the DUT would be
   used. The authors do not have any idea how the results of such a test
   would be interpreted other than to directly compare multiple DUTs in
   some very specific simulated network.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-19" href="#section-19">19</a>. Testing performance beyond a single DUT.</span>

   In the performance testing of a single DUT, the paradigm can be
   described as applying some input to a DUT and monitoring the output.
   The results of which can be used to form a basis of characterization
   of that device under those test conditions.



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   This model is useful when the test input and output are homogenous
   (e.g., 64-byte IP, 802.3 frames into the DUT; 64 byte IP, 802.3
   frames out), or the method of test can distinguish between dissimilar
   input/output. (E.g., 1518 byte IP, 802.3 frames in; 576 byte,
   fragmented IP, X.25 frames out.)

   By extending the single DUT test model, reasonable benchmarks
   regarding multiple DUTs or heterogeneous environments may be
   collected. In this extension, the single DUT is replaced by a system
   of interconnected network DUTs. This test methodology would support
   the benchmarking of a variety of device/media/service/protocol
   combinations. For example, a configuration for a LAN-to-WAN-to-LAN
   test might be:

   (1) 802.3-&gt; DUT 1 -&gt; X.25 @ 64kbps -&gt; DUT 2 -&gt; 802.3

   Or a mixed LAN configuration might be:

   (2) 802.3 -&gt; DUT 1 -&gt; FDDI -&gt; DUT 2 -&gt; FDDI -&gt; DUT 3 -&gt; 802.3

   In both examples 1 and 2, end-to-end benchmarks of each system could
   be empirically ascertained. Other behavior may be characterized
   through the use of intermediate devices. In example 2, the
   configuration may be used to give an indication of the FDDI to FDDI
   capability exhibited by DUT 2.

   Because multiple DUTs are treated as a single system, there are
   limitations to this methodology. For instance, this methodology may
   yield an aggregate benchmark for a tested system. That benchmark
   alone, however, may not necessarily reflect asymmetries in behavior
   between the DUTs, latencies introduce by other apparatus (e.g.,
   CSUs/DSUs, switches), etc.

   Further, care must be used when comparing benchmarks of different
   systems by ensuring that the DUTs' features/configuration of the
   tested systems have the appropriate common denominators to allow
   comparison.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-20" href="#section-20">20</a>. Maximum frame rate</span>

   The maximum frame rates that should be used when testing LAN
   connections SHOULD be the listed theoretical maximum rate for the
   frame size on the media.








<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   The maximum frame rate that should be used when testing WAN
   connections SHOULD be greater than the listed theoretical maximum
   rate for the frame size on that speed connection.  The higher rate
   for WAN tests is to compensate for the fact that some vendors employ
   various forms of header compression.

   A list of maximum frame rates for LAN connections is included in
   <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-21" href="#section-21">21</a>. Bursty traffic</span>

   It is convenient to measure the DUT performance under steady state
   load but this is an unrealistic way to gauge the functioning of a DUT
   since actual network traffic normally consists of bursts of frames.
   Some of the tests described below SHOULD be performed with both
   steady state traffic and with traffic consisting of repeated bursts
   of frames.  The frames within a burst are transmitted with the
   minimum legitimate inter-frame gap.

   The objective of the test is to determine the minimum interval
   between bursts which the DUT can process with no frame loss. During
   each test the number of frames in each burst is held constant and the
   inter-burst interval varied.  Tests SHOULD be run with burst sizes of
   16, 64, 256 and 1024 frames.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-22" href="#section-22">22</a>. Frames per token</span>

   Although it is possible to configure some token ring and FDDI
   interfaces to transmit more than one frame each time that the token
   is received, most of the network devices currently available transmit
   only one frame per token.  These tests SHOULD first be performed
   while transmitting only one frame per token.

   Some current high-performance workstation servers do transmit more
   than one frame per token on FDDI to maximize throughput.  Since this
   may be a common feature in future workstations and servers,
   interconnect devices with FDDI interfaces SHOULD be tested with 1, 4,
   8, and 16 frames per token.  The reported frame rate SHOULD be the
   average rate of frame transmission over the total trial period.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-23" href="#section-23">23</a>. Trial description</span>

   A particular test consists of multiple trials.  Each trial returns
   one piece of information, for example the loss rate at a particular
   input frame rate.  Each trial consists of a number of phases:

   a) If the DUT is a router, send the routing update to the "input"
   port and pause two seconds to be sure that the routing has settled.



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   b)  Send the "learning frames" to the "output" port and wait 2
   seconds to be sure that the learning has settled.  Bridge learning
   frames are frames with source addresses that are the same as the
   destination addresses used by the test frames.  Learning frames for
   other protocols are used to prime the address resolution tables in
   the DUT.  The formats of the learning frame that should be used are
   shown in the Test Frame Formats document.

   c) Run the test trial.

   d) Wait for two seconds for any residual frames to be received.

   e) Wait for at least five seconds for the DUT to restabilize.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-24" href="#section-24">24</a>. Trial duration</span>

   The aim of these tests is to determine the rate continuously
   supportable by the DUT.  The actual duration of the test trials must
   be a compromise between this aim and the duration of the benchmarking
   test suite.  The duration of the test portion of each trial SHOULD be
   at least 60 seconds.  The tests that involve some form of "binary
   search", for example the throughput test, to determine the exact
   result MAY use a shorter trial duration to minimize the length of the
   search procedure, but the final determination SHOULD be made with
   full length trials.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-25" href="#section-25">25</a>. Address resolution</span>

   The DUT SHOULD be able to respond to address resolution requests sent
   by the DUT wherever the protocol requires such a process.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-26" href="#section-26">26</a>. Benchmarking tests:</span>

   Note: The notation "type of data stream" refers to the above
   modifications to a frame stream with a constant inter-frame gap, for
   example, the addition of traffic filters to the configuration of the
   DUT.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.1" href="#section-26.1">26.1</a> Throughput</span>

   Objective:  To determine the DUT throughput as defined in <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>.

   Procedure:  Send a specific number of frames at a specific rate
   through the DUT and then count the frames that are transmitted by the
   DUT. If the count of offered frames is equal to the count of received
   frames, the fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate
   of the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.




<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   The throughput is the fastest rate at which the count of test frames
   transmitted by the DUT is equal to the number of test frames sent to
   it by the test equipment.

   Reporting format:  The results of the throughput test SHOULD be
   reported in the form of a graph. If it is, the x coordinate SHOULD be
   the frame size, the y coordinate SHOULD be the frame rate.  There
   SHOULD be at least two lines on the graph.  There SHOULD be one line
   showing the theoretical frame rate for the media at the various frame
   sizes.  The second line SHOULD be the plot of the test results.
   Additional lines MAY be used on the graph to report the results for
   each type of data stream tested.  Text accompanying the graph SHOULD
   indicate the protocol, data stream format, and type of media used in
   the tests.

   We assume that if a single value is desired for advertising purposes
   the vendor will select the rate for the minimum frame size for the
   media. If this is done then the figure MUST be expressed in frames
   per second.  The rate MAY also be expressed in bits (or bytes) per
   second if the vendor so desires.  The statement of performance MUST
   include a/ the measured maximum frame rate, b/ the size of the frame
   used, c/ the theoretical limit of the media for that frame size, and
   d/ the type of protocol used in the test.  Even if a single value is
   used as part of the advertising copy, the full table of results
   SHOULD be included in the product data sheet.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.2" href="#section-26.2">26.2</a> Latency</span>

   Objective:  To determine the latency as defined in <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>.

   Procedure:  First determine the throughput for 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 120 seconds in duration.
   An identifying tag SHOULD be included in one frame after 60 seconds
   with the type of tag being implementation dependent. The time at
   which this frame is fully transmitted is recorded (timestamp A).  The
   receiver logic in the test equipment MUST recognize the tag
   information in the frame stream and record the time at which the
   tagged frame was received (timestamp B).

   The latency is timestamp B minus timestamp A as per the relevant
   definition frm <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>, namely latency as defined for store and
   forward devices or latency as defined for bit forwarding devices.

   The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported value
   being the average of the recorded values.




<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


   This test SHOULD be performed with the test frame addressed to the
   same destination as the rest of the data stream and also with each of
   the test frames addressed to a new destination network.

   Reporting format:  The report MUST state which definition of latency
   (from <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>) was used for this test.  The 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, for the
   media types tested, and for the resultant latency values for each
   type of data stream tested.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.3" href="#section-26.3">26.3</a> Frame loss rate</span>

   Objective:  To determine the frame loss rate, as defined in <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>,
   of a DUT throughout the entire range of input data rates and frame
   sizes.

   Procedure:  Send a specific number of frames at a specific rate
   through the DUT to be tested and count the frames that are
   transmitted by the DUT.  The frame loss rate at each point is
   calculated using the following equation:

          ( ( input_count - output_count ) * 100 ) / input_count


   The first trial SHOULD be run for the frame rate that corresponds to
   100% of the maximum rate for the frame size on the input media.
   Repeat the procedure for the rate that corresponds to 90% of the
   maximum rate used and then for 80% of this rate.  This sequence
   SHOULD be continued (at reducing 10% intervals) until there are two
   successive trials in which no frames are lost. The maximum
   granularity of the trials MUST be 10% of the maximum rate, a finer
   granularity is encouraged.

   Reporting format:  The results of the frame loss rate test SHOULD be
   plotted as a graph.  If this is done then the X axis MUST be the
   input frame rate as a percent of the theoretical rate for the media
   at the specific frame size. The Y axis MUST be the percent loss at
   the particular input rate.  The left end of the X axis and the bottom
   of the Y axis MUST be 0 percent; the right end of the X axis and the
   top of the Y axis MUST be 100 percent.  Multiple lines on the graph
   MAY used to report the frame loss rate for different frame sizes,
   protocols, and types of data streams.

   Note: See <a href="#section-18">section 18</a> for the maximum frame rates that SHOULD be used.





<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.4" href="#section-26.4">26.4</a> Back-to-back frames</span>

   Objective:  To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
   back frames as defined in <a href="./rfc1242">RFC 1242</a>.

   Procedure:  Send a burst of frames with minimum inter-frame gaps to
   the DUT and count the number of frames forwarded by the DUT.  If the
   count of transmitted frames is equal to the number of frames
   forwarded the length of the burst is increased and the test is rerun.
   If the number of forwarded frames is less than the number
   transmitted, the length of the burst is reduced and the test is
   rerun.

   The back-to-back value is the number of frames in the longest burst
   that the DUT will handle without the loss of any frames.  The trial
   length MUST be at least 2 seconds and SHOULD be repeated at least 50
   times with the average of the recorded values being reported.

   Reporting format:  The back-to-back 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 and for the resultant
   average frame count for each type of data stream tested.  The
   standard deviation for each measurement MAY also be reported.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.5" href="#section-26.5">26.5</a> System recovery</span>

   Objective:  To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from an
   overload condition.

   Procedure:  First determine the throughput for a DUT at each of the
   listed frame sizes.

   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:  The system recovery 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 frame rate used as
   the throughput rate for each type of data stream tested, and for the
   measured recovery time for each type of data stream tested.






<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-26.6" href="#section-26.6">26.6</a> Reset</span>

   Objective:  To characterize the speed at which a DUT recovers from a
   device or software reset.

   Procedure:  First determine the throughput for the DUT for the
   minimum frame size on the media used in the testing.

   Send a continuous stream of frames at the determined throughput rate
   for the minimum sized frames. Cause a reset in the DUT.  Monitor the
   output until frames begin to be forwarded and record the time that
   the last frame (Timestamp A) of the initial stream and the first
   frame of the new stream (Timestamp B) are received.  A power
   interruption reset test is performed as above except that the power
   to the DUT should be interrupted for 10 seconds in place of causing a
   reset.

   This test SHOULD only be run using frames addressed to networks
   directly connected to the DUT so that there is no requirement to
   delay until a routing update is received.

   The reset value is obtained by subtracting Timestamp A from Timestamp
   B.

   Hardware and software resets, as well as a power interruption SHOULD
   be tested.

   Reporting format:  The reset value SHOULD be reported in a simple set
   of statements, one for each reset type.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-27" href="#section-27">27</a>. Security Considerations</span>

   Security issues are not addressed in this document.


















<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-28" href="#section-28">28</a>. Editors' Addresses</span>

   Scott Bradner
   Harvard University
   1350 Mass. Ave, room 813
   Cambridge, MA 02138

   Phone: +1 617 495-3864
   Fax:   +1 617 496-8500
   EMail: sob@harvard.edu


   Jim McQuaid
   NetScout Systems
   4 Westford Tech Park Drive
   Westford, MA 01886

   Phone: +1 978 614-4116
   Fax:   +1 978 614-4004
   EMail: mcquaidj@netscout.com































<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


Appendix A: Testing Considerations

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a> Scope Of This Appendix</span>

   This appendix discusses certain issues in the benchmarking
   methodology where experience or judgment may play a role in the tests
   selected to be run or in the approach to constructing the test with a
   particular DUT.  As such, this <a href="#appendix-M">appendix M</a>UST not be read as an
   amendment to the methodology described in the body of this document
   but as a guide to testing practice.

   1. Typical testing practice has been to enable all protocols to be
      tested and conduct all testing with no further configuration of
      protocols, even though a given set of trials may exercise only one
      protocol at a time. This minimizes the opportunities to "tune" a
      DUT for a single protocol.

   2. The least common denominator of the available filter functions
      should be used to ensure that there is a basis for comparison
      between vendors. Because of product differences, those conducting
      and evaluating tests must make a judgment about this issue.

   3. Architectural considerations may need to be considered.  For
      example, first perform the tests with the stream going between
      ports on the same interface card and the repeat the tests with the
      stream going into a port on one interface card and out of a port
      on a second interface card. There will almost always be a best
      case and worst case configuration for a given DUT architecture.

   4. Testing done using traffic streams consisting of mixed protocols
      has not shown much difference between testing with individual
      protocols.  That is, if protocol A testing and protocol B testing
      give two different performance results, mixed protocol testing
      appears to give a result which is the average of the two.

   5. Wide Area Network (WAN) performance may be tested by setting up
      two identical devices connected by the appropriate short- haul
      versions of the WAN modems.  Performance is then measured between
      a LAN interface on one DUT to a LAN interface on the other DUT.

   The maximum frame rate to be used for LAN-WAN-LAN configurations is a
   judgment that can be based on known characteristics of the overall
   system including compression effects, fragmentation, and gross link
   speeds. Practice suggests that the rate should be at least 110% of
   the slowest link speed. Substantive issues of testing compression
   itself are beyond the scope of this document.





<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


Appendix B: Maximum frame rates reference

      (Provided by Roger Beeman, Cisco Systems)

        Size       Ethernet    16Mb Token Ring      FDDI
       (bytes)       (pps)           (pps)         (pps)

       64            14880           24691         152439
       128            8445           13793          85616
       256            4528            7326          45620
       512            2349            3780          23585
       768            1586            2547          15903
       1024           1197            1921          11996
       1280            961            1542           9630
       1518            812            1302           8138

      Ethernet size
       Preamble 64 bits
       Frame 8 x N bits
       Gap  96 bits

      16Mb Token Ring size
         SD               8 bits
         AC               8 bits
         FC               8 bits
         DA              48 bits
         SA              48 bits
         RI              48 bits ( 06 30 00 12 00 30 )
         SNAP
           DSAP           8 bits
           SSAP           8 bits
           Control        8 bits
           Vendor        24 bits
           Type          16 bits
         Data 8 x ( N - 18) bits
         FCS             32 bits
         ED               8 bits
         FS               8 bits

      Tokens or idles between packets are not included

      FDDI size
         Preamble        64 bits
         SD               8 bits
         FC               8 bits
         DA              48 bits
         SA              48 bits
         SNAP



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


           DSAP           8 bits
           SSAP           8 bits
           Control        8 bits
           Vendor        24 bits
           Type          16 bits
         Data 8 x ( N - 18) bits
         FCS             32 bits
         ED               4 bits
         FS              12 bits










































<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


Appendix C: Test Frame Formats

   This appendix defines the frame formats that may be used with these
   tests.  It also includes protocol specific parameters for TCP/IP over
   Ethernet to be used with the tests as an example.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.1" href="#appendix-C.1">C.1</a>. Introduction</span>

   The general logic used in the selection of the parameters and the
   design of the frame formats is explained for each case within the
   TCP/IP section.  The same logic has been used in the other sections.
   Comments are used in these sections only if there is a protocol
   specific feature to be explained.  Parameters and frame formats for
   additional protocols can be defined by the reader by using the same
   logic.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2" href="#appendix-C.2">C.2</a>. TCP/IP Information</span>

   The following section deals with the TCP/IP protocol suite.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.1" href="#appendix-C.2.1">C.2.1</a> Frame Type.</span>

   An application level datagram echo request is used for the test data
   frame in the protocols that support such a function.  A datagram
   protocol is used to minimize the chance that a router might expect a
   specific session initialization sequence, as might be the case for a
   reliable stream protocol. A specific defined protocol is used because
   some routers verify the protocol field and refuse to forward unknown
   protocols.

   For TCP/IP a UDP Echo Request is used.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.2" href="#appendix-C.2.2">C.2.2</a> Protocol Addresses</span>

   Two sets of addresses must be defined: first the addresses assigned
   to the router ports, and second the address that are to be used in
   the frames themselves and in the routing updates.

   The network addresses 192.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 are have been
   assigned to the BMWG by the IANA for this purpose.  This assignment
   was made to minimize the chance of conflict in case a testing device
   were to be accidentally connected to part of the Internet.  The
   specific use of the addresses is detailed below.








<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.2.1" href="#appendix-C.2.2.1">C.2.2.1</a> Router port protocol addresses</span>

   Half of the ports on a multi-port router are referred to as "input"
   ports and the other half as "output" ports even though some of the
   tests use all ports both as input and output.  A contiguous series of
   IP Class C network addresses from 198.18.1.0 to 198.18.64.0 have been
   assigned for use on the "input" ports.  A second series from
   198.19.1.0 to 198.19.64.0 have been assigned for use on the "output"
   ports. In all cases the router port is node 1 on the appropriate
   network.  For example, a two port DUT would have an IP address of
   198.18.1.1 on one port and 198.19.1.1 on the other port.

   Some of the tests described in the methodology memo make use of an
   SNMP management connection to the DUT.  The management access address
   for the DUT is assumed to be the first of the "input" ports
   (198.18.1.1).

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.2.2" href="#appendix-C.2.2.2">C.2.2.2</a> Frame addresses</span>

   Some of the described tests assume adjacent network routing (the
   reboot time test for example).  The IP address used in the test frame
   is that of node 2 on the appropriate Class C network. (198.19.1.2 for
   example)

   If the test involves non-adjacent network routing the phantom routers
   are located at node 10 of each of the appropriate Class C networks.
   A series of Class C network addresses from 198.18.65.0 to
   198.18.254.0 has been assigned for use as the networks accessible
   through the phantom routers on the "input" side of DUT.  The series
   of Class C networks from 198.19.65.0 to 198.19.254.0 have been
   assigned to be used as the networks visible through the phantom
   routers on the "output" side of the DUT.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.3" href="#appendix-C.2.3">C.2.3</a> Routing Update Frequency</span>

   The update interval for each routing protocol is may have to be
   determined by the specifications of the individual protocol.  For IP
   RIP, Cisco IGRP and for OSPF a routing update frame or frames should
   precede each stream of test frames by 5 seconds.  This frequency is
   sufficient for trial durations of up to 60 seconds.  Routing updates
   must be mixed with the stream of test frames if longer trial periods
   are selected.  The frequency of updates should be taken from the
   following table.

          IP-RIP  30 sec
          IGRP  90 sec
          OSPF  90 sec




<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4" href="#appendix-C.2.4">C.2.4</a> Frame Formats - detailed discussion</span>

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.1" href="#appendix-C.2.4.1">C.2.4.1</a> Learning Frame</span>

   In most protocols a procedure is used to determine the mapping
   between the protocol node address and the MAC address.  The Address
   Resolution Protocol (ARP) is used to perform this function in TCP/IP.
   No such procedure is required in XNS or IPX because the MAC address
   is used as the protocol node address.

   In the ideal case the tester would be able to respond to ARP requests
   from the DUT.  In cases where this is not possible an ARP request
   should be sent to the router's "output" port.  This request should be
   seen as coming from the immediate destination of the test frame
   stream. (i.e. the phantom router (Figure 2) or the end node if
   adjacent network routing is being used.) It is assumed that the
   router will cache the MAC address of the requesting device.  The ARP
   request should be sent 5 seconds before the test frame stream starts
   in each trial.  Trial lengths of longer than 50 seconds may require
   that the router be configured for an extended ARP timeout.

                      +--------+            +------------+
                      |        |            |  phantom   |------ P LAN
         A
            IN A------|   DUT  |------------|            |------ P LAN
         B
                      |        |   OUT A    |  router    |------ P LAN
         C
                      +--------+            +------------+

                                 Figure 2

           In the case where full routing is being used

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.2" href="#appendix-C.2.4.2">C.2.4.2</a> Routing Update Frame</span>

   If the test does not involve adjacent net routing the tester must
   supply proper routing information using a routing update.  A single
   routing update is used before each trial on each "destination" port
   (see section C.24).  This update includes the network addresses that
   are reachable through a phantom router on the network attached to the
   port.  For a full mesh test, one destination network address is
   present in the routing update for each of the "input" ports.  The
   test stream on each "input" port consists of a repeating sequence of
   frames, one to each of the "output" ports.






<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.3" href="#appendix-C.2.4.3">C.2.4.3</a> Management Query Frame</span>

   The management overhead test uses SNMP to query a set of variables
   that should be present in all DUTs that support SNMP.  The variables
   for a single interface only are read by an NMS at the appropriate
   intervals.  The list of variables to retrieve follow:

             sysUpTime
             ifInOctets
             ifOutOctets
             ifInUcastPkts
             ifOutUcastPkts

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.4" href="#appendix-C.2.4.4">C.2.4.4</a> Test Frames</span>

   The test frame is an UDP Echo Request with enough data to fill out
   the required frame size.  The data should not be all bits off or all
   bits on since these patters can cause a "bit stuffing" process to be
   used to maintain clock synchronization on WAN links.  This process
   will result in a longer frame than was intended.

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.5" href="#appendix-C.2.4.5">C.2.4.5</a> Frame Formats - TCP/IP on Ethernet</span>

   Each of the frames below are described for the 1st pair of DUT ports,
   i.e. "input" port #1 and "output" port #1.  Addresses must be changed
   if the frame is to be used for other ports.

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.6.1" href="#appendix-C.2.6.1">C.2.6.1</a> Learning Frame</span>

          ARP Request on Ethernet

          -- DATAGRAM HEADER
          offset data (hex)            description
          00     FF FF FF FF FF FF     dest MAC address send to
         broadcast address
          06     xx xx xx xx xx xx     set to source MAC address
          12     08 06                 ARP type
          14     00 01                 hardware type Ethernet = 1
          16     08 00                 protocol type IP = 800
          18     06                    hardware address length 48 bits
         on Ethernet
          19     04                    protocol address length 4 octets
         for IP
          20     00 01                 opcode request = 1
          22     xx xx xx xx xx xx     source MAC address
          28     xx xx xx xx           source IP address
          32     FF FF FF FF FF FF     requesting DUT's MAC address
          38     xx xx xx xx           DUT's IP address



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.6.2" href="#appendix-C.2.6.2">C.2.6.2</a> Routing Update Frame</span>

          -- DATAGRAM HEADER
          offset data (hex)            description
          00     FF FF FF FF FF FF     dest MAC address is broadcast
          06     xx xx xx xx xx xx     source hardware address
          12     08 00                 type

          -- IP HEADER
          14     45                    IP version - 4, header length (4
         byte units) - 5
          15     00                    service field
          16     00 EE                 total length
          18     00 00                 ID
          20     40 00                 flags (3 bits) 4 (do not
         fragment),
                                       fragment offset-0
          22     0A                    TTL
          23     11                    protocol - 17 (UDP)
          24     C4 8D                 header checksum
          26     xx xx xx xx           source IP address
          30     xx xx xx              destination IP address
          33     FF                    host part = FF for broadcast

          -- UDP HEADER
          34     02 08                 source port 208 = RIP
          36     02 08                 destination port 208 = RIP
          38     00 DA                 UDP message length
          40     00 00                 UDP checksum

          -- RIP packet
          42     02                  command = response
          43     01                  version = 1
          44     00 00               0

          -- net 1
          46     00 02               family = IP
          48     00 00               0
          50     xx xx xx            net 1 IP address
          53     00                  net not node
          54     00 00 00 00         0
          58     00 00 00 00         0
          62     00 00 00 07         metric 7

          -- net 2
          66     00 02               family = IP
          68     00 00               0
          70     xx xx xx            net 2 IP address



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


          73     00                  net not node
          74     00 00 00 00         0
          78     00 00 00 00         0
          82     00 00 00 07         metric 7

          -- net 3
          86     00 02               family = IP
          88     00 00               0
          90     xx xx xx            net 3 IP address
          93     00                  net not node
          94     00 00 00 00         0
          98     00 00 00 00         0
          102    00 00 00 07         metric 7

          -- net 4
          106    00 02               family = IP
          108    00 00               0
          110    xx xx xx            net 4 IP address
          113    00                  net not node
          114    00 00 00 00         0
          118    00 00 00 00         0
          122    00 00 00 07         metric 7

          -- net 5
          126    00 02               family = IP
          128    00 00               0
          130    00                  net 5 IP address
          133    00                  net not node
          134    00 00 00 00         0
          138    00 00 00 00         0
          142    00 00 00 07         metric 7

          -- net 6
          146    00 02               family = IP
          148    00 00               0
          150    xx xx xx            net 6 IP address
          153    00                  net not node
          154    00 00 00 00         0
          158    00 00 00 00         0
          162    00 00 00 07         metric 7

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.4.6" href="#appendix-C.2.4.6">C.2.4.6</a> Management Query Frame</span>

   To be defined.

<span class="h5"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-C.2.6.4" href="#appendix-C.2.6.4">C.2.6.4</a> Test Frames</span>

   UDP echo request on Ethernet



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


          -- DATAGRAM HEADER
          offset data (hex)            description
          00     xx xx xx xx xx xx     set to dest MAC address
          06     xx xx xx xx xx xx     set to source MAC address
          12     08 00                 type

          -- IP HEADER
          14     45                    IP version - 4 header length 5 4
         byte units
          15     00                    TOS
          16     00 2E                 total length*
          18     00 00                 ID
          20     00 00                 flags (3 bits) - 0 fragment
         offset-0
          22     0A                    TTL
          23     11                    protocol - 17 (UDP)
          24     C4 8D                 header checksum*
          26     xx xx xx xx           set to source IP address**
          30     xx xx xx xx           set to destination IP address**

          -- UDP HEADER
          34     C0 20                 source port
          36     00 07                 destination port 07 = Echo
          38     00 1A                 UDP message length*
          40     00 00                 UDP checksum

          -- UDP DATA
          42     00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07    some data***
          50     08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F

         * - change for different length frames

         ** - change for different logical streams

         *** - fill remainder of frame with incrementing octets,
         repeated if required by frame length

   Values to be used in Total Length and UDP message length fields:

          frame size   total length  UDP message length
             64            00 2E          00 1A
             128           00 6E          00 5A
             256           00 EE          00 9A
             512           01 EE          01 9A
             768           02 EE          02 9A
             1024          03 EE          03 9A
             1280          04 EE          04 9A
             1518          05 DC          05 C8



<span class="grey">Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc2544">RFC 2544</a>                Benchmarking Methodology              March 1999</span>


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
























Bradner &amp; McQuaid            Informational                     [Page 31]
</pre>