Network Working Group A. Akhter Internet Draft R. Asati Expires: October 2006 M. Khalid cisco Systems April 5, 2006 MPLS Benchmarking Methodology Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on October 5, 2006. Abstract The purpose of this draft is to describe methodology specific to the benchmarking of MPLS forwarding devices. It builds upon the tenets set forth in [RFC2544], [RFC2432] and other IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking Terminology documents and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms. The Methodology documents define the procedures required to collect the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. Document Scope.................................................4 3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements..............................4 4. Test Setup.....................................................4 4.1. Test Considerations.......................................5 4.1.1. IGP Support..........................................5 4.1.2. LDP Support..........................................6 4.1.3. Frame Sizes..........................................6 4.1.4. TTL..................................................6 4.1.5. Trial Duration.......................................6 4.1.6. Traffic Verification.................................6 4.1.7. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State........6 4.1.8. Abbreviations Used...................................7 5. Reporting Format...............................................7 6. Test Cases - MPLS Forwarding...................................8 6.1. MPLS Forwarding and Throughput............................8 6.1.1. Unidirectional Static Label Imposition...............8 6.1.2. Unidirectional Static Single Label Disposition......10 6.1.3. Unidirectional Static Single Label Swap.............11 6.1.4. Bidirectional Static Single Label Imposition and Disposition................................................13 6.1.5. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Imposition........15 6.1.6. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Disposition.......15 6.1.7. Unidirectional Static Single label Disposition with Explicit-null..............................................15 6.1.8. Unidirectional Static Single label Swap with Explicit- null.......................................................15 6.1.9. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Disposition with Explicit-null..............................................15 6.1.10. Unidirectional Static Single Label Disposition for Aggregate Label............................................16 6.1.11. Unidirectional Static Single label Swap for Aggregate Label......................................................16 Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 6.1.12. Unidirectional Multi-label Disposition with Explicit- null.......................................................16 6.1.13. Unidirectional Fragmentation with Imposition.......16 6.1.14. Unidirectional IPv6 Extension Header with Imposition16 6.1.15. Unidirectional IPv4 Router Options with Imposition.16 6.2. MPLS Forwarding - EXP Operation..........................16 6.2.1. IP-to-MPLS path - Label Imposition - EXP............16 6.2.2. MPLS-to-MPLS path - Label Imposition - EXP..........16 6.2.3. MPLS-to-IP path - Label Disposition - EXP...........16 6.3. MPLS Forwarding Delay Measurement........................16 6.3.1. Forwarding Delay in IP-to-MPLS path - Single Label Imposition.................................................17 6.3.2. Forwarding Delay in IP-to-MPLS path - Multi Label Imposition.................................................17 6.3.3. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-MPLS path - Single Label Swap.......................................................17 6.3.4. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-MPLS path - Multi Label Swap ...........................................................17 6.3.5. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-IP path - Single Label disposition................................................17 6.3.6. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-IP path - Multi Label disposition................................................17 6.4. MPLS Forwarding Negative Characterization................17 6.4.1. MPLS TTL Timeout....................................17 6.4.2. MPLS topmost label's EOS bit within a label stack...17 6.4.3. MPLS label stack's depth............................17 6.4.4. MPLS packet received on a non-MPLS interface........17 7................................................................18 8................................................................18 9................................................................18 10. Security Considerations......................................18 11. IANA Considerations..........................................18 12. References...................................................19 12.1. Normative References....................................19 Author's Addresses...............................................19 Intellectual Property Statement..................................20 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................20 Copyright Statement..............................................21 Acknowledgment...................................................21 1. Introduction Over the past several years MPLS networks have gained greater popularity, however there is no standard method to compare and contrast the varying implementations and their strong and weak points. This document proposes several criterias and a methodology Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 for the comparison of various implementations of basic MPLS forwarding devices. 2. Document Scope Generic MPLS is a foundation enabling technology for other more advanced technologies such as IPv4 MPLS-VPNS, Layer 2 VPNs, and MPLS Traffic Engineering. This document will limit it self to only generic MPLS such as basic label forwarding and LDP for control-plane activities. Child technologies will be covered in a subsequent set of documents. An accompanying document titled 'Terminology for MPLS Benchmarking' defines many of the terms used in this document. The terminology should be consulted before attempting to make use of this document. 3. Key Words to Reflect Requirements The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [Br97]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track document. 4. Test Setup The set of methodologies described in this document will use the topologies described in this section. An effort has been made to exclude superfluous equipment needs such that each test can be carried out with the minimum number of requirements. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 +-----------------+ +---------+ | | +---------+ | Test | | | | Test | | Port A1 +-----+ DA1 DB1 -----+ Port B1 | +---------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ | DUT | +---------+ | Test | | | | Test | | Port A2 +-----+ DA2 DB2 +-----+ Port B2 | +---------+ | | +---------+ ... | | ... +---------+ | | +---------+ | Test | +-----------------+ | Test | | Port Ax | | Port Bx | +---------+ +---------+ Figure 1 Topology #1, Basic Forwarding Where (x) is determined by the maximum unidirectional forwarding throughput of the DUT and the load capacity of the media between the Test Ports and DUT. For example, if the DUT's forwarding throughput is 100 frames per second (fps), and the media capacity is 50 fps than x = 2. The minimum value for Bx is 2, as multiple B interfaces are needed for head of line blocking testing (Section TBD). 4.1. Test Considerations This methodology assumes a full-duplex uniform medium topology. The medium used MUST be reported in each test result. Issues regarding mixed transmission media, speed mismatches, media header differences etc, are not under consideration. Flow control, QoS, Graceful Restart and other non-essential traffic or traffic-effecting features MUST be disabled, unless explicitly requested by the test case. 4.1.1. IGP Support All of the interfaces (A1, DA1, DB1, A2..) MUST support an IGP such as IS-IS or OSPF. While technically, MPLS can work in conjunction with RIP, EIGRP, or static routes etc, practically, devices will be used with either OSPF or IS-IS. Furthermore, there are testing considerations in this document that the device is able to provide a stable control-plane during heavy forwarding. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 4.1.2. LDP Support The DUT must support at least one protocol for exchanging MPLS labels. The most commonly used protocol is Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)[RFC3036]. All of the interfaces connected to the DUT such as A1, DA1, DB1, A2 etc., MUST support Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) for IPv4 or IPv6 FECs. The test traffic generator will need to learn and advertise labels from and to the DUT using LDP. 4.1.3. Frame Sizes Each test SHOULD be run with different frame sizes. For Ethernet, the recommended sizes are 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280 and 1518. Recommended sizes for other media can be found in RFC 2544. In addition to the individual frame size test runs, an IMIX traffic run SHOULD also be included. When testing different frame sizes, the DUT configuration should remain the same. 4.1.4. TTL The MPLS TTL or IP TTL (depending on which portion of the packet the DUT is basing the forwarding behavior) MUST be large enough to traverse the DUT. 4.1.5. Trial Duration Unless otherwise specified, the test portion of each trial SHOULD be no less than 30 seconds when static routing is in place and no less than 200 seconds when a dynamic routing protocol and LDP are being used. 4.1.6. Traffic Verification In all cases the sent traffic MUST be accounted for, whether it was received on the wrong port, correct port or not received at all. In addition, the payload of the packet MUST be verified, as well as checksum, frame sequencing and correct TTL decrementing. 4.1.7. Address Resolution and Dynamic Protocol State Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 If the test or media is making use of a dynamic protocol (eg ARP, OSPF, LDP), all state for the protocols should be pre-established before the start of the test. 4.1.8. Abbreviations Used 4.1.8.1. PxRNy Port based Remote Network P := port (could be A or B) x: = port number RN := Remote Network (can also be thought of as a network that is reachable via ) Px. y := number of network. (ie the first network reachable via B1 would be called B1RN1 and the 5th network would be called B1RN5) 4.1.8.2. PxAN Port Based Attached Network P := port (could be A or B) x: = port number AN := Attached (connected) Network 5. Reporting Format For each test case, it is recommended that the following variables be reported in addition to the specific parameters requested by the test case: Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Parameter Unit IGP ISIS or OSPF Interface Type GigE, POS, ATM etc Interface Speed 1 gbps, 100 Mbps, etc Interface Encapsulation VLAN, PPP, HDLC Packet Size Bytes Number of A and B 1A, 2B interfaces 6. Test Cases - MPLS Forwarding 6.1. MPLS Forwarding and Throughput This section contains the description of the tests that are related to the characterization of frame forwarding of a DUT in various MPLS environments. 6.1.1. Unidirectional Static Label Imposition Objective To obtain the maximum label imposition throughput for a regular (IPv4 or IPv6) packet by the DUT. Test Setup It is recommended that a single A and B interface SHOULD be used. However, if the forwarding throughput of the DUT is more than that of the media rate, then additional A and B interfaces MUST be enabled so as to match up the DUT's forwarding throughput. The traffic streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544. For this unidirectional test, the test tool will be sending unlabeled traffic to ports DAx and receiving labeled traffic on ports Bx. The DUT will be configured such that a single network address will be reachable via each Bx port. For example, there will be the connected network on the link between DB1 and B1, and a single Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 network (B1RN1) will be reachable via B1's Layer 3 address. Test tool traffic will be destined to an address in each BxRN1. The DUT will be statically configured to impose a unique non-null label for each BxRN1 Discussion Procedure Offer traffic from port Ax towards DUT at a constant load towards all BxRN1 addresses for a fixed duration of time. If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero frame loss. Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size etc) constant, until the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined. Reporting Format The following parameters MUST be reflected in the test report, in addition to the parameters in section 4: o Maximum throughput as defined in RFC 2432 o Values for each BxRN1 (eg 1.1.1.0/24) Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD include: offered load and measured throughput. 6.1.2. Unidirectional Static Single Label Disposition Objective To obtain the maximum label disposition throughput for a regular (IPv4) packet by the DUT. Test Setup It is recommended that a single A and B interface SHOULD be used. However, if the forwarding throughput of the DUT is more than that of the media rate, then additional A and B interfaces MUST be enabled so as to match up the DUT's forwarding throughput. The traffic streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544. For this unidirectional test, the test tool will be sending labeled traffic to ports DAx and receiving on ports Bx. The DUT will be configured such that a single network address will be reachable via each Bx port. For example, there will be the connected network on the link between DB1 and B1 (B1AN), and a single network (B1RN1) will be reachable via B1's Layer 3 address. The DUT will be statically configured such that each BxRN1 and BxAN is assigned a unique non-null label, and that label is installed in the LFIB. Test tool traffic will be destined to BxRN1 and BxAN in a weighted round robin fashion. The labels assigned to BxRN1 and BxAN on the DUT will be used. The weighting ratio between BxRN1 and BxAN is a constant test parameter. A suggested ratio is 1:100 with BxAN:BxRN1. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Discussion Procedure Offer traffic from port Ax towards DUT at a constant load towards all BxRN1 addresses for a fixed duration of time. If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero frame loss. Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size, ratio of BxAN and BxRN1 etc) constant, until the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined. Reporting Format The following parameters MUST be reflected in the test report, in addition to the parameters in section 4: o Maximum throughput as defined in RFC 2432 o Values for each BxAN (eg 1.1.1.0/24) o Ratio of BxAN:BxRN1 Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD include: offered load and measured throughput. 6.1.3. Unidirectional Static Single Label Swap Objective To obtain the maximum label swap throughput for a labeled packet by the DUT. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Test Setup Although only a single A and B interface SHOULD be used, it is possible that the forwarding capacity of the box may exceed the media capacity. In such a case additional A and B interfaces MUST be enabled and traffic streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544. For this unidirectional test, the test tool will be sending labeled traffic to ports DAx and receiving labeled traffic on ports Bx. The DUT will be configured such that a single network address will be reachable via each Bx port. For example, there will be the connected network on the link between DB1 and B1 (B1AN), and a single network (B1RN1) will be reachable via B1's Layer 3 address. The DUT will be statically configured such that each BxRN1 is assigned a unique non-null label, and that label is installed in the LFIB. The DUT will be statically configured such that each BxRN1 incoming label (defined above) also has an outgoing label associated with the Bx next-hop, such that a label swap will occour. Test tool traffic will be destined to BxRN1. The labels assigned to BxRN1 on the DUT will be used. Discussion Procedure Offer traffic from port Ax towards DUT at a constant load towards all BxRN1 addresses for a fixed duration of time. If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased and the sender will transmit again. An iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero frame loss. Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 12] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size, etc) constant, until the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined. Reporting Format The following parameters MUST be reflected in the test report, in addition to the parameters in section 4: o Maximum throughput as defined in RFC 2432 Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD include: offered load and measured throughput. 6.1.4. Bidirectional Static Single Label Imposition and Disposition Objective To obtain the maximum label imposition and disposition throughput for a labeled packet by the DUT. Test Setup Although only a single A and B interface SHOULD be used, it is possible that the forwarding capacity of the box may exceed the media capacity. In such a case additional A and B interfaces MUST be enabled and traffic streams offered MUST conform to section 16 of RFC 2544. For this bidirectional test, the test tool will be sending/receiving labeled traffic via ports DAx and receiving/sending unlabeled traffic via ports DBx. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 13] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 The DUT will be configured such that a single network address will be reachable via each Bx and Ax port. For example, there will be the connected network on the link between DB1 and B1 (B1AN), and a single network (B1RN1) will be reachable via B1's Layer 3 address. The DUT will be statically configured such that each AxRN1 is assigned a unique non-null label, and that label is installed in the LFIB as an outgoing label for AxRN1. Each BxRN1 will also be assigned a label, but this label will have an outgoing behavior of 'pop'. Test tool traffic will be destined to BxRN1 and AxRN1. The labels assigned to BxRN1 on the DUT will be used in traffic via DAx to BxRN1. Traffic destined to AxRN1 will be unlabeled and sent via DBx. Discussion Procedure Offer traffic from port Ax towards DUT at a constant load towards all BxRN1 addresses for a fixed duration of time. At the same time, traffic is offered from Bx towards DUT at a constant load towards the AxRN1 addresses. If any frame loss is detected, the offered load is decreased on both Ax and Bx and the sender will transmit again. An iterative search algorithm MUST be used to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero frame loss. Each iteration will involve varying the offered load of the regular traffic, while keeping the other parameters (test duration, number of interfaces, number of addresses, frame size, etc) constant, Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 14] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 until the maximum rate at which none of the offered frames are dropped is determined. Reporting Format The following parameters MUST be reflected in the test report, in addition to the parameters in section 4: . Maximum throughput as defined in RFC 2432 . If the load out of Ax and Bx are not the same, the differences must be noted. Results for each test SHOULD be in the form of a table with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. Additional columns SHOULD include: offered load and measured throughput. 6.1.5. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Imposition 6.1.6. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Disposition 6.1.7. Unidirectional Static Single label Disposition with Explicit-null 6.1.8. Unidirectional Static Single label Swap with Explicit-null 6.1.9. Unidirectional Static Multi-label Disposition with Explicit-null Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 15] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 6.1.10. Unidirectional Static Single Label Disposition for Aggregate Label 6.1.11. Unidirectional Static Single label Swap for Aggregate Label 6.1.12. Unidirectional Multi-label Disposition with Explicit-null 6.1.13. Unidirectional Fragmentation with Imposition 6.1.14. Unidirectional IPv6 Extension Header with Imposition 6.1.15. Unidirectional IPv4 Router Options with Imposition 6.2. MPLS Forwarding - EXP Operation 6.2.1. IP-to-MPLS path - Label Imposition - EXP 6.2.2. MPLS-to-MPLS path - Label Imposition - EXP 6.2.3. MPLS-to-IP path - Label Disposition - EXP 6.3. MPLS Forwarding Delay Measurement This measures the time taken by the DUT to forward the MPLS packet during various MPLS switching paths such as IP-to-MPLS or MPLS-to- MPLS involving one or more labels. The forwarding delay measurement requires the accurate propagation delay measurement as prerequisite. One of the propagation delay measurement mechanisms is to connect two test ports such as A1 and B1 with the wire length=X (bypass DA1 and DB1) and measure the time (t1) taken by the packet to reach from A1 to B1. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 16] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Once the time t1 has been recorded, then the DUT should be inserted such that the test port A1 connects to DA1 and B1 connects to DB1, and the sum of A1-DA1 wire length and B1-DB1 wire length equals X. The packet should be sent from A1 to B1 such that the packet is received by DA1, which after consulting with its forwarding table, forwards the packet to B1 via DB1. The time (t2) taken by the packet to reach B1 (from A1) is recorded. The difference of time t2-t1 would provide the ballpark measurement of DUT's forwarding delay. The measurement for t2 could be performed under the following six cases and the forward delay could be measured accordingly. 6.3.1. Forwarding Delay in IP-to-MPLS path - Single Label Imposition 6.3.2. Forwarding Delay in IP-to-MPLS path - Multi Label Imposition 6.3.3. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-MPLS path - Single Label Swap 6.3.4. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-MPLS path - Multi Label Swap 6.3.5. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-IP path - Single Label disposition 6.3.6. Forwarding Delay in MPLS-to-IP path - Multi Label disposition 6.4. MPLS Forwarding Negative Characterization The purpose of such characterization is to subject the DUT to various negative forwarding scenarios and ensure that the DUT behaves appropriately. 6.4.1. MPLS TTL Timeout 6.4.2. MPLS topmost label's EOS bit within a label stack 6.4.3. MPLS label stack's depth 6.4.4. MPLS packet received on a non-MPLS interface Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 17] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 7. 8. 9. 10. Security Considerations During the course of test, the test topology must be disconnected from devices that may forward the test traffic into a production environment. There are no specific security considerations within the scope of this document. 11. IANA Considerations There are no considerations for IANA at this time. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 18] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999. [RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC 2432, October 1998. [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. Author's Addresses Aamer Akhter Cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road RTP, NC 27709 USA Phone: 919 392 2564 Email: aakhter@cisco.com Mohamed Khalid Cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road RTP, NC 27709 USA Phone: 919 392 3260 Email: mkhalid@cisco.com Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 19] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems 7025 Kit Creek Road RTP, NC 27709 USA Phone: 919 392 8558 Email: rajiva@cisco.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 20] Internet-Draft MPLS Benchmarking Methodology April 2006 Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Akhter, et al. Expires October 5, 2006 [Page 21]