File formats:

Also available: XML file for editing

 

Status:

INFORMATIONAL

Authors:

G. Lencse
K. Shima

Stream:

IETF

Source:

bmwg (ops)

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML  |   BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9693

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list bmwg@ietf.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  |  View History of RFC 9693

Abstract

RFC 2544 defines a benchmarking methodology for network interconnect devices. RFC 5180 addresses IPv6 specificities, and it also provides a technology update but excludes IPv6 transition technologies. RFC 8219 addresses IPv6 transition technologies, including stateful NAT64. However, none of them discuss how to apply pseudorandom port numbers from RFC 4814 to any stateful NATxy (such as NAT44, NAT64, and NAT66) technologies. This document discusses why using pseudorandom port numbers with stateful NATxy gateways is a difficult problem. It recommends a solution that limits the port number ranges and uses two test phases (phase 1 and phase 2). This document shows how the classic performance measurement procedures (e.g., throughput, frame loss rate, latency, etc.) can be carried out. New performance metrics and measurement procedures are also defined for measuring the maximum connection establishment rate, connection tear-down rate, and connection tracking table capacity.

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.