RFC 9693: Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
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.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9693
- Published
- January 2025
- Authors
- G. Lencse; K. Shima
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 24
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9506Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurements TechniquesCurrent
October 2023
- RFC 9411Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device PerformanceCurrent
March 2023
- RFC 8219Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition TechnologiesCurrent
August 2017
- RFC 7901CHAIN Query Requests in DNSCurrent
June 2016
- RFC 6985IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet Sizes for Additional TestingCurrent
July 2013
- RFC 6076Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance MetricsCurrent
January 2011
- RFC 5481Packet Delay Variation Applicability StatementCurrent
March 2009
- RFC 4814Hash and Stuffing: Overlooked Factors in Network Device BenchmarkingCurrent
March 2007
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?