Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 6815 Harvard University
Updates: 2544 K. Dubray
Category: Informational Juniper Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. McQuaid
Turnip Video
A. Morton
AT&T Labs
November 2012
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 6815 Harvard University
Updates: 2544 K. Dubray
Category: Informational Juniper Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. McQuaid
Turnip Video
A. Morton
AT&T Labs
November 2012
Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful
RFC 2544的适用性声明：在被认为有害的生产网络上使用
Abstract
摘要
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has been developing key performance metrics and laboratory test methods since 1990, and continues this work at present. The methods described in RFC 2544 are intended to generate traffic that overloads network device resources in order to assess their capacity. Overload of shared resources would likely be harmful to user traffic performance on a production network, and there are further negative consequences identified with production application of the methods. This memo clarifies the scope of RFC 2544 and other IETF BMWG benchmarking work for isolated test environments only, and it encourages new standards activity for measurement methods applicable outside that scope.
基准方法工作组（BMWG）自1990年以来一直在开发关键性能指标和实验室测试方法，目前仍在继续这项工作。RFC 2544中描述的方法旨在生成使网络设备资源过载的通信量，以评估其容量。共享资源的过载可能会对生产网络上的用户流量性能造成危害，并且这些方法的生产应用还会产生进一步的负面后果。本备忘录澄清了RFC 2544和其他IETF BMWG仅针对隔离测试环境的基准测试工作的范围，并鼓励针对适用于该范围之外的测量方法开展新的标准活动。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2012 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Scope and Goals .................................................4
3. The Concept of an Isolated Test Environment .....................4
4. Why the Methods of RFC 2544 Are Intended Only for ITE ...........4
4.1. Experimental Control and Accuracy ..........................4
4.2. Containing Damage ..........................................5
5. Advisory on RFC 2544 Methods in Production Networks .............5
6. Considering Performance Testing in Production Networks ..........6
7. Security Considerations .........................................7
8. Acknowledgements ................................................7
9. References ......................................................8
9.1. Normative References .......................................8
9.2. Informative References .....................................8
Appendix A. Example of RFC 2544 Method Failure in Production
Network Measurement ....................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Scope and Goals .................................................4
3. The Concept of an Isolated Test Environment .....................4
4. Why the Methods of RFC 2544 Are Intended Only for ITE ...........4
4.1. Experimental Control and Accuracy ..........................4
4.2. Containing Damage ..........................................5
5. Advisory on RFC 2544 Methods in Production Networks .............5
6. Considering Performance Testing in Production Networks ..........6
7. Security Considerations .........................................7
8. Acknowledgements ................................................7
9. References ......................................................8
9.1. Normative References .......................................8
9.2. Informative References .....................................8
Appendix A. Example of RFC 2544 Method Failure in Production
Network Measurement ....................................9
This memo clarifies the scope and use of IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) tests including [RFC2544], which discusses and defines several tests that may be used to characterize the performance of a network interconnecting device. All readers of this memo must read and fully understand [RFC2544].
本备忘录澄清了IETF基准测试方法工作组（BMWG）测试的范围和用途，包括[RFC2544]，其中讨论并定义了可用于表征网络互连设备性能的若干测试。本备忘录的所有读者必须阅读并完全理解[RFC2544]。
Benchmarking methodologies (beginning with [RFC2544]) have always relied on test conditions that can only be produced and replicated reliably in the laboratory. These methodologies are not appropriate for inclusion in wider specifications such as:
基准测试方法（从[RFC2544]开始）始终依赖于只能在实验室可靠生成和复制的测试条件。这些方法不适合包含在更广泛的规范中，例如：
1. Validation of telecommunication service configuration, such as the Committed Information Rate (CIR).
1. 验证电信服务配置，如提交信息速率（CIR）。
2. Validation of performance metrics in a telecommunication Service Level Agreement (SLA), such as frame loss and latency.
2. 验证电信服务水平协议（SLA）中的性能指标，如帧丢失和延迟。
3. Telecommunication service activation testing, where traffic that shares network resources with the test might be adversely affected.
3. 电信服务激活测试，其中与测试共享网络资源的流量可能受到不利影响。
Above, we distinguish "telecommunication service" (where a network service provider contracts with a customer to transfer information between specified interfaces at different geographic locations) from the generic term "service". Below, we use the adjective "production" to refer to networks carrying live user traffic. [RFC2544] used the term "real-world" to refer to production networks and to differentiate them from test networks.
如上所述，我们将“电信服务”（网络服务提供商与客户签订合同，在不同地理位置的指定接口之间传输信息）与通用术语“服务”区分开来。下面，我们用形容词“生产”来指承载实时用户流量的网络。[RFC2544]使用术语“真实世界”来指代生产网络，并将其与测试网络区分开来。
Although [RFC2544] has been held up as the standard reference for the testing listed above, we believe that the actual methods used vary from [RFC2544] in significant ways. Since the only citation is to [RFC2544], the modifications are opaque to the standards community and to users in general.
尽管[RFC2544]被认为是上述测试的标准参考，但我们认为实际使用的方法与[RFC2544]有很大不同。由于唯一引用的是[RFC2544]，因此对标准团体和一般用户来说，修改是不透明的。
Since applying the test traffic and methods described in [RFC2544] on a production network risks causing overload in shared resources, there is direct risk of harming user traffic if the methods are misused in this way. Therefore, the IETF BMWG developed this Applicability Statement for [RFC2544] to directly address the situation.
由于在生产网络上应用[RFC2544]中所述的测试流量和方法有可能导致共享资源过载，因此，如果以这种方式误用这些方法，则存在损害用户流量的直接风险。因此，IETF BMWG为[RFC2544]制定了本适用性声明，以直接解决这种情况。
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This memo clarifies the scope of [RFC2544] with the goal of providing guidance to the industry on its applicability, which is limited to laboratory testing.
本备忘录澄清了[RFC2544]的范围，旨在为行业提供适用性指导，仅限于实验室测试。
An Isolated Test Environment (ITE) used with the methods of [RFC2544] (as illustrated in Figures 1 through 3 of [RFC2544]) has the ability to:
与[RFC2544]方法一起使用的隔离测试环境（ITE）（如[RFC2544]的图1至图3所示）能够：
o contain the test streams to paths within the desired setup
o 将测试流包含到所需设置中的路径
o prevent non-test traffic from traversing the test setup
o 防止非测试流量穿越测试设置
These features allow unfettered experimentation, while at the same time protecting lab equipment management/control LANs and other production networks from the unwanted effects of the test traffic.
这些特性允许不受限制的实验，同时保护实验室设备管理/控制LAN和其他生产网络免受测试流量的有害影响。
The following sections discuss some of the reasons why [RFC2544] methods are applicable only for isolated laboratory use, and the consequences of applying these methods outside the lab environment.
以下各节讨论了[RFC2544]方法仅适用于单独实验室使用的一些原因，以及在实验室环境之外应用这些方法的后果。
All of the tests described in RFC 2544 require that the tester and device under test are the only devices on the networks that are transmitting data. The presence of other traffic (unwanted on the ITE network) would mean that the specified test conditions have not been achieved and flawed results are a likely consequence.
RFC 2544中描述的所有测试都要求测试仪和被测设备是网络上传输数据的唯一设备。存在其他通信量（ITE网络上不需要的通信量）意味着未达到规定的测试条件，可能会导致有缺陷的结果。
If any other traffic appears and the amount varies over time, the repeatability of any test result will likely depend to some degree on the amount and variation of the other traffic.
如果出现任何其他流量且流量随时间变化，则任何测试结果的可重复性可能在一定程度上取决于其他流量的数量和变化。
The presence of other traffic makes accurate, repeatable, and consistent measurements of the performance of the device under test very unlikely, since the complete details of test conditions will not be reported.
由于不报告测试条件的完整细节，其他通信量的存在使得准确、可重复和一致的测试设备性能测量变得非常不可能。
For example, the RFC 2544 Throughput Test attempts to characterize a maximum reliable load; thus, there will be testing above the maximum that causes packet/frame loss. Any other sources of traffic on the network will cause packet loss to occur at a tester data rate lower than the rate that would be achieved without the extra traffic.
例如，RFC 2544吞吐量测试试图表征最大可靠负载；因此，将有超过最大值的测试导致数据包/帧丢失。网络上的任何其他流量源都会导致测试仪数据速率低于在没有额外流量的情况下实现的速率时发生数据包丢失。
[RFC2544] methods, specifically to determine Throughput as defined in [RFC1242] and other benchmarks, may overload the resources of the device under test, and they may cause failure modes in the device under test. Since failures can become the root cause of more widespread failure, it is clearly desirable to contain all test traffic within the ITE.
[RFC2544]方法，特别是用于确定[RFC1242]和其他基准中定义的吞吐量的方法，可能会使被测设备的资源过载，并可能导致被测设备出现故障模式。由于故障可能成为更广泛故障的根本原因，因此显然需要在ITE中包含所有测试流量。
In addition, such testing can have a negative effect on any traffic that shares resources with the test stream(s) since, in most cases, the traffic load will be close to the capacity of the network links.
此外，此类测试可能对与测试流共享资源的任何流量产生负面影响，因为在大多数情况下，流量负载将接近网络链路的容量。
Appendix C.2.2 of [RFC2544] (as adjusted by errata) gives the private IPv4 address range for testing:
[RFC2544]的附录C.2.2（经勘误表调整）给出了测试专用IPv4地址范围：
"...The network addresses 198.18.0.0 through 198.19.255.255 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."
“…IANA已为此目的将网络地址198.18.0.0至198.19.255.255分配给BMWG。进行此分配是为了在测试设备意外连接到互联网的一部分时将冲突的可能性降至最低。地址的具体使用如下所述。”
In other words, devices operating on the Internet may be configured to discard any traffic they observe in this address range, as it is intended for laboratory ITE use only. Thus, if testers using the assigned testing address ranges are connected to the Internet and test packets are forwarded across the Internet, it is likely that the packets will be discarded and the test will not work.
换句话说，在互联网上运行的设备可能被配置为丢弃在该地址范围内观察到的任何通信量，因为它仅用于实验室。因此，如果使用分配的测试地址范围的测试人员连接到互联网，并且测试数据包通过互联网转发，则数据包很可能会被丢弃，并且测试将不起作用。
We note that a range of IPv6 addresses has been assigned to BMWG for laboratory test purposes, in [RFC5180] (as amended by errata).
我们注意到[RFC5180]（经勘误表修订）中为实验室测试目的向BMWG分配了一系列IPv6地址。
See the Security Considerations section below for further considerations on containing damage.
有关控制损坏的更多注意事项，请参见下面的安全注意事项部分。
The tests in [RFC2544] were designed to measure the performance of network devices, not of networks, and certainly not production networks carrying user traffic on shared resources. There will be undesirable consequences when applying these methods outside the isolated test environment.
[RFC2544]中的测试旨在测量网络设备的性能，而不是网络的性能，当然也不是在共享资源上承载用户流量的生产网络的性能。当在隔离测试环境之外应用这些方法时，会产生不良后果。
One negative consequence stems from reliance on frame loss as an indicator of resource exhaustion in [RFC2544] methods. In practice, link-layer and physical-layer errors prevent production networks from operating loss-free. The [RFC2544] methods will not correctly assess Throughput when loss from uncontrolled sources is present. Frame loss occurring at the SLA levels of some networks could affect every iteration of Throughput testing (when each step includes sufficient packets to experience facility-related loss). Flawed results waste the time and resources of the testing service user and of the service provider when called to dispute the measurement. These are additional examples of harm that compliance with this advisory should help to avoid. See Appendix A for an example.
在[RFC2544]方法中，一个负面后果是依赖帧丢失作为资源消耗的指标。实际上，链路层和物理层错误会阻止生产网络无损耗运行。[RFC2544]方法无法正确评估存在非受控源损失时的吞吐量。在某些网络的SLA级别发生的帧丢失可能会影响吞吐量测试的每次迭代（当每个步骤包括足够的数据包以经历与设施相关的丢失时）。有缺陷的结果浪费了测试服务用户和服务提供商的时间和资源，因为他们被要求对测量结果提出异议。这些是遵守本咨询意见应有助于避免的其他伤害示例。有关示例，请参见附录A。
The methods described in [RFC2544] are intended to generate traffic that overloads network device resources in order to assess their capacity. Overload of shared resources would likely be harmful to user traffic performance on a production network. These tests MUST NOT be used on production networks and as discussed above. The tests will not produce a reliable or accurate benchmarking result on a production network.
[RFC2544]中描述的方法旨在产生使网络设备资源过载的通信量，以评估其容量。共享资源过载可能会对生产网络上的用户流量性能造成危害。这些测试不得用于生产网络，如上所述。测试不会在生产网络上产生可靠或准确的基准测试结果。
[RFC2544] methods have never been validated on a network path, even when that path is not part of a production network and carrying no other traffic. It is unknown whether the tests can be used to measure valid and reliable performance of a multi-device, multi-network path. It is possible that some of the tests may prove valid in some path scenarios, but that work has not been done or has not been shared with the IETF community. Thus, such testing is contraindicated by the BMWG.
[RFC2544]方法从未在网络路径上进行过验证，即使该路径不是生产网络的一部分且不承载其他流量。目前尚不清楚这些测试是否可用于测量多设备、多网络路径的有效和可靠性能。有些测试可能在某些路径场景中被证明是有效的，但这些工作尚未完成或尚未与IETF社区共享。因此，BMWG禁止此类测试。
The IETF has addressed the problem of production network performance measurement by chartering a different working group: IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). This working group has developed a set of standard metrics to assess the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet packet transfer services. These metrics can be measured by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. We note that some IPPM metrics differ from RFC 2544 metrics with similar names, and there is likely to be confusion if the details are ignored.
IETF通过成立一个不同的工作组来解决生产网络性能测量问题：IP性能度量（IPPM）。该工作组开发了一套标准度量标准，用于评估Internet数据包传输服务的质量、性能和可靠性。这些指标可以由网络运营商、最终用户或独立测试组来衡量。我们注意到，一些IPPM度量与RFC 2544度量有相似的名称，如果忽略细节，可能会产生混淆。
IPPM has not yet standardized methods for raw capacity measurement of Internet paths. Such testing needs to adequately consider the strong possibility for degradation to any other traffic that may be present due to congestion. There are no specific methods proposed for activation of a packet transfer service in IPPM at this time. Thus, individuals who need to conduct capacity tests on production networks
IPPM尚未对互联网路径的原始容量测量方法进行标准化。这样的测试需要充分考虑到由于拥塞而可能存在的任何其他业务退化的强烈可能性。目前没有针对IPPM中数据包传输服务的激活提出的具体方法。因此，需要对生产网络进行能力测试的个人
should actively participate in standards development to ensure their methods receive appropriate industry review and agreement, in the IETF or in alternate standards development organizations.
应积极参与标准开发，以确保其方法在IETF或替代标准开发组织中得到适当的行业审查和同意。
Other standards may help to fill gaps in telecommunication service testing. For example, the IETF has many standards intended to assist with network Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). ITU-T Study Group 12 has a Recommendation on service activation test methodology [Y.1564].
其他标准可能有助于填补电信服务测试的空白。例如，IETF有许多旨在协助网络操作、管理和维护（OAM）的标准。ITU-T研究小组12对服务激活测试方法提出了建议[Y.1564]。
The world will not spin off axis while waiting for appropriate and standardized methods to emerge from the consensus process.
世界不会在等待协商一致进程产生适当和标准化的方法时脱离轴心。
This Applicability Statement intends to help preserve the security of the Internet by clarifying that the scope of [RFC2544] and other BMWG memos are all limited to testing in a laboratory ITE, thus avoiding accidental Denial-of-Service attacks or congestion due to high traffic volume test streams.
本适用性声明旨在通过澄清[RFC2544]和其他BMWG备忘录的范围均限于实验室ITE中的测试，从而避免因高流量测试流导致的意外拒绝服务攻击或拥塞，从而有助于维护互联网的安全。
All benchmarking activities are limited to technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints [RFC2544].
所有基准测试活动仅限于在实验室环境中使用受控刺激进行技术表征，具有专用地址空间和其他限制条件[RFC2544]。
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test traffic into a production network or misroute traffic to the test management network.
基准网络拓扑将是一个独立的测试设置，不得连接到可能将测试流量转发到生产网络或将流量错误路由到测试管理网络的设备。
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the device under test/ system under test (DUT/SUT).
此外，基准测试是在“黑盒”基础上进行的，仅依赖于被测设备/被测系统（DUT/SUT）外部可观察到的测量值。
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production networks.
DUT/SUT中不应存在专门用于基准测试的特殊能力。DUT/SUT对网络安全的任何影响应在实验室和生产网络中相同。
Thanks to Matt Zekauskas, Bill Cerveny, Barry Constantine, Curtis Villamizar, David Newman, and Adrian Farrel for suggesting improvements to this memo.
感谢Matt Zekauskas、Bill Cerveny、Barry Constantine、Curtis Villamizar、David Newman和Adrian Farrel对本备忘录提出的改进建议。
Specifically, Al Morton would like to thank his coauthors, who constitute the complete set of Chairmen-Emeritus of the BMWG, for returning from other pursuits to develop this statement and see it through to approval. This has been a rare privilege; one that likely will not be matched in the IETF again:
特别是，Al Morton要感谢他的合著者，他们构成了BMWG的一整套名誉主席，感谢他们从其他工作中归来，制定本声明并将其付诸实施。这是一种难得的特权；IETF中可能不再匹配的一个：
Scott Bradner served as Chairman from 1990 to 1993 Jim McQuaid served as Chairman from 1993 to 1995 Kevin Dubray served as Chairman from 1995 to 2006
斯科特·布拉德纳（Scott Bradner）于1990年至1993年担任主席吉姆·麦克奎德（Jim McQuaid）于1993年至1995年担任主席凯文·杜布雷（Kevin Dubrey）于1995年至2006年担任主席
It's all about the band.
都是关于乐队的。
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking terminology for network interconnection devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[RFC1242]Bradner，S.，“网络互连设备的基准术语”，RFC1242，1991年7月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC2544]Bradner，S.和J.McQuaid，“网络互连设备的基准测试方法”，RFC 2544，1999年3月。
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, May 2008.
[RFC5180]Popoviciu，C.，Hamza，A.，Van de Velde，G.，和D.Dugatkin，“网络互连设备的IPv6基准测试方法”，RFC 51802008年5月。
[Bryant] Bonica, R. and S. Bryant, "RFC2544 Testing in Production Network", Work in Progress, October 2012.
[Bryant]Bonica，R.和S.Bryant，“生产网络中的RFC2544测试”，正在进行的工作，2012年10月。
[Y.1564] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1564, "Ethernet Service Activation Test Methodology", March 2011.
[Y.1564]ITU-T建议Y.1564，“以太网服务激活测试方法”，2011年3月。
Appendix A. Example of RFC 2544 Method Failure in Production Network Measurement
附录A.生产网络测量中RFC 2544方法故障示例
This Appendix provides an example illustrating how [RFC2544] methods applied on production networks can easily produce a form of harm from flawed and misleading results.
本附录提供了一个示例，说明在生产网络上应用的[RFC2544]方法如何容易因有缺陷和误导性的结果而产生某种形式的伤害。
The [RFC2544] Throughput benchmarking method usually includes the following steps:
[RFC2544]吞吐量基准测试方法通常包括以下步骤：
a. Set the offered traffic level, less than max of the ingress link(s).
a. 设置提供的流量级别，小于入口链路的最大值。
b. Send the test traffic through the device under test (DUT) and count all frames successfully transferred.
b. 通过被测设备（DUT）发送测试流量，并对成功传输的所有帧进行计数。
c. If all frames are received, increment traffic level and repeat step b.
c. 如果接收到所有帧，则增加通信量级别并重复步骤b。
d. If one or more frames are lost, the level is in the DUT-overload region (step b may be repeated at a reduced traffic level to more exactly determine the maximum rate at which none of the frames are dropped by the DUT, defined as the Throughput [RFC1242]).
d. 如果一个或多个帧丢失，则该电平处于DUT过载区域（可在降低的业务电平下重复步骤b，以更准确地确定DUT不丢弃任何帧的最大速率，定义为吞吐量[RFC1242]）。
e. Report the Throughput values, the x-y of graph of frame size and Throughput, and other information in accordance with [RFC2544].
e. 根据[RFC2544]报告吞吐量值、帧大小和吞吐量图的x-y以及其他信息。
In this method, frame loss is the sole indicator of overload and therefore the determining factor in the measurement of Throughput using the [RFC2544] methodology (even though the results may not report frame loss per se).
在该方法中，帧丢失是过载的唯一指标，因此是使用[RFC2544]方法测量吞吐量的决定因素（即使结果可能不报告帧丢失本身）。
Frame loss is subject to many factors in addition to operating above the Throughput traffic level. These factors include optical interference (which may be due to dirty interfaces, crossover from other signals, fiber bend and temperature, etc.) and electrical interference (caused by local sources of radio signals, electrical spikes, solar particles, etc.). In the laboratory environment many of these issues can be carefully controlled through cleaning and isolation. Since [RFC2544] methodologies are primarily intended to test devices and not paths, the total length of path, the number of interfaces, and compound risk of random frame loss can be kept to a minimum.
除了在吞吐量流量水平以上运行外，帧丢失还受到许多因素的影响。这些因素包括光学干扰（可能是由于接口不干净、其他信号交叉、光纤弯曲和温度等）和电气干扰（由本地无线电信号源、电尖峰、太阳粒子等引起）。在实验室环境中，可以通过清洁和隔离仔细控制这些问题。由于[RFC2544]方法主要用于测试设备而不是路径，因此路径的总长度、接口的数量和随机帧丢失的复合风险可以保持在最小。
In a production network, however, there will be many interfaces and many kilometers of path under test. This considerably increases the risk of random frame loss.
然而，在生产网络中，将有许多接口和许多公里的测试路径。这大大增加了随机帧丢失的风险。
The risk of frame loss caused by outside effects is significantly higher in production networks, and significantly higher with long paths (both those with long physical path lengths, and those with large numbers of interfaces in the path). Thus, the risk of falsely low reported Throughput using an [RFC2544] methodology test is considerably increased in a production network.
在生产网络中，由外部效应引起的帧丢失风险显著较高，而在长路径中（包括物理路径长度较长的网络和路径中有大量接口的网络）的帧丢失风险显著较高。因此，在生产网络中，使用[RFC2544]方法测试的错误低报告吞吐量的风险显著增加。
Therefore, to successfully conduct tests with similar objectives to those in [RFC2544] in a production network, it will be necessary to develop modifications to the methodologies defined in [RFC2544] and standards to describe them. See [Bryant] for an in-progress effort and [Y.1564] for an approved method adapted to production service activation.
因此，为了在生产网络中成功地进行与[RFC2544]中目标类似的测试，有必要对[RFC2544]中定义的方法和标准进行修改，以对其进行描述。参见[Bryant]了解正在进行的工作，参见[Y.1564]了解适用于生产服务激活的批准方法。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Scott Bradner Harvard University 1350 Mass. Ave., Room 760 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
斯科特·布拉德纳哈佛大学1350弥撒。美国马萨诸塞州剑桥大街760室02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
URI: http://www.sobco.com
Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
URI: http://www.sobco.com
Kevin Dubray Juniper Networks
凯文杜布雷杜尼珀网络
Jim McQuaid Turnip Video 6 Cobbleridge Court Durham, North Carolina 27713 USA
Jim McQuaid Turnip视频6美国北卡罗来纳州达勒姆科布利奇法院27713
Phone: +1 919-619-3220
EMail: jim@turnipvideo.com
URI: www.turnipvideo.com
Phone: +1 919-619-3220
EMail: jim@turnipvideo.com
URI: www.turnipvideo.com
Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown,, NJ 07748 USA
美国新泽西州劳雷尔大道南米德尔顿200号阿尔莫顿AT&T实验室，邮编：07748
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
EMail: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
EMail: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/