fuel -

Branch	Commit message	Author	Age
master	docker build: Update saltstack repo URL, locale	Alexandru Avadanii	5 years
stable/iruya	requirements: CentOS7: s/python3/python36/	Alexandru Avadanii	5 years
stable/hunter	docker-compose: Align hosts with hostname	Alexandru Avadanii	5 years
stable/gambia	Fix race condition with nova privsep utime	Michael Polenchuk	6 years
stable/fraser	[ovn] Disable metadata agent	Michael Polenchuk	6 years
stable/euphrates	Merge "[MaaS] Override failed testing by default" into stable/euphrates	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
stable/danube	f_tackerpluginbuild: Fix obsolete mitaka branch	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
stable/colorado	build/Makefile: deepclean: make grep more strict	Anders Roxell	8 years
experimental	Preparing the experimental branch for improved Danube CI/CD experiments	Jonas Bjurel	8 years
stable/brahmaputra	Merge "docs/build-instr: Fix git clone URL for HTTPS." into stable/brahmaputra	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
stable/arno	Moving tag arno.2015.2.0 from genesis to fuel/stable/arno	Jonas Bjurel	9 years

Tag	Download	Author	Age
opnfv-9.0.0	commit e6f1c557ad...	jenkins-ci	5 years
opnfv-8.1.0	commit 09ec1e9cc0...	jenkins-ci	6 years
opnfv-8.0.0	commit 4e64c8495d...	jenkins-ci	6 years
opnfv-7.2.0	commit 0c05f52aaf...	jenkins-ci	6 years
opnfv-7.1.0	commit 79c5615053...	jenkins-ci	6 years
opnfv-7.0.0	commit 326c26b9b8...	jenkins-ci	6 years
opnfv-6.2.1	commit 56cfed1a89...	jenkins-ci	7 years
opnfv-6.2.0	commit 93c3c3acd2...	jenkins-ci	7 years
opnfv-6.1.0	commit e29220a401...	Aric Gardner	7 years
opnfv-6.0.0	commit d458419267...	Trevor Bramwell	7 years
opnfv-5.1.0	commit 78878a3301...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
opnfv-5.1.RC1	commit 78878a3301...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
opnfv-5.0.2	commit 5dffae89ca...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
opnfv-5.0.1	commit 79379e8377...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
opnfv-5.0.0	commit c132eb192e...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
opnfv-5.0.RC1	commit c132eb192e...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
danube.3.0	commit 956467be60...	Alexandru Avadanii	7 years
danube.3.RC1	commit a8f5b91961...	Alexandru Avadanii	8 years
danube.2.0	commit a77f057394...	Alexandru Avadanii	8 years
danube.1.0	commit 68898be998...	Alexandru Avadanii	8 years
danube.1.RC1	commit 68898be998...	Alexandru Avadanii	8 years
colorado.3.0	commit cbf8c7ca76...	Fedor Zhadaev	8 years
colorado.2.0.1	commit 4d3833d6d5...	Alexandru Avadanii	8 years
colorado.2.0	commit 771761f708...	Michael Polenchuk	8 years
colorado.2.rc1.1	commit c3562a68a3...	Fedor Zhadaev	8 years
colorado.2.rc1	commit f46bf98e19...	Michal Skalski	8 years
colorado.1.0	commit cc10e9261f...	Jonas Bjurel	8 years
colorado.1.rc3	commit d1dd9f9d57...	Jonas Bjurel	8 years
colorado.1.rc2	commit b90311bf32...	Jonas Bjurel	8 years
colorado.1.rc1	commit e07d06641a...	Jonas Bjurel	8 years
brahmaputra.3.0	commit 3e535448fe...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
brahmaputra.1.0	commit 1760e3fc44...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
brahmaputra.1.rc3	commit aa1e5a395e...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
brahmaputra.1.rc2	commit 24fd272116...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
brahmaputra.1.rc1	commit 5f2c7f4b25...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
arno.2015.2.0	commit 543130927b...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years
arno.2015.1.0	commit 11dbe27afb...	Jonas Bjurel	9 years

Network Working Group M. Tahhan Internet-Draft B. O'Mahony Intended status: Informational Intel Expires: April 16, 2016 A. Morton AT&T Labs October 14, 2015 Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01 Abstract This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo begins to describe the additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented in general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the "telco" infrastructure. Requirements Language 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]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2016. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 4 3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 7 4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Accuracy of Activation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 1. Introduction Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have served our industry for many years. Now, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) has the goal to transform how internetwork functions are implemented, and therefore has garnered much attention. This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization, "VSWITCHPERF". This project intends to build on the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing existing literature. For example, currently the most often referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong. See https://wiki.opnfv.org/ characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information: https://www.opnfv.org/ The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud-computing. There are many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example. Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many new benchmarking initiatives across the industry, and the authors are currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other projects, and this Internet Draft is evidence of the efforts. 2. Scope The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform BMWG of work- in-progress that builds on the body of extensive literature and experience. Additionally, once the initial information conveyed here is received, this memo may be expanded to include more detail and commentary from both BMWG and OPNFV communities, under BMWG's chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch is an important aspect of that infrastructure). Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 3. Benchmarking Considerations This section highlights some specific considerations (from [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net])related to Benchmarks for virtual switches. The OPNFV project is sharing its present view on these areas, as they develop their specifications in the Level Test Design (LTD) document. 3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed. BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this memo re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them during development of new methods. A key configuration aspect is the number of parallel cores required to achieve comparable performance with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level. It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of internetworking functions. 3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks External observations remain essential as the basis for Benchmarks. Internal observations with fixed specification and interpretation will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations procedures when the technology is deployed. 3.3. New Configuration Parameters A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch there are many factors that can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists some of the many new parameters which this project believes are critical to report in order to achieve repeatability. Hardware details including: o Platform details o Processor details o Memory information (type and size) Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 o Number of enabled cores o Number of cores used for the test o Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into) o NIC interrupt configuration o BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were modified o CPU microcode level o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...) o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor package, OS...) Software details including: o OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the console on one system) o OS version (for host and VNF) o Kernel version (for host and VNF) o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF) o Hypervisor details (Type and version) o Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used o vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised o Memory allocation to the vSwitch o which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels o DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 o VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non- persistent o Number of VMs o Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host o Number vNIC interrupt configuration o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch itself) on the host o Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/ Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows. Test Traffic Information: o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other o Packet Sizes o Deployment Scenario 3.4. Flow classification Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets based on the input ports. Thus a flow can be thought of a sequence of packets that have the same set of header field values or have arrived on the same port. Performance results can vary based on the parameters the vSwitch uses to match for a flow. The recommended flow classification parameters for any vSwitch performance tests are: the input port, the source IP address, the destination IP address and the Ethernet protocol type field. It is essential to increase the flow timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance tests that do not measure the flow setup time. Normally the first packet of a particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch which adds an additional latency, subsequent packets of the same flow are not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on the vSwitch. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this time. 1. Baselines: * Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and latency). Benchmark platform forwarding capability __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host | | | | | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | NIC | | | +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ * Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity (vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will serve as a key comparison point for vSwitch bypass technologies performance and vSwitch performance. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Benchmark VNF forwarding capability __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | VNF | | | | | | | | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | NIC | | | +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are SUT * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some resources unused * Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied 2. Next Steps * Limited sharing * Production scenarios * Stressful scenarios 4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the pre- existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of physical switches. These specifications include: o [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 o [RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching o [RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for the first time, and represent a development challenge for test equipment developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing system community have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an open source test system. In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by: o [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include: o [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking o [RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the specification. When considering characteristics important to "telco" network functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. In this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from the IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the [RFC2544] test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric derived from IPPM's [RFC2679], where a set of statistical summaries will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further metrics planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined by [RFC5481] , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT capacity and packet loss in long term testing at Throughput level, where some low- level of background loss may be present and characterized. Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below: o Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in frames per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load (as defined by RFC1242) without traffic loss. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 o Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min and max packet and frame delay for constant loads. o Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover outliers. o Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs as the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding logic's configuration... it has to deal with increases. o Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through the switch. o Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how closely coupled the datapath and the control path are as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT (example: delay of the initial packet of a flow). o CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual switch's footprint on the system, usually conducted as auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint. Future/planned test specs include: o Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the transaction rate through the switch. o Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch. o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003 requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration technologies applied to vswitches. The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network means that the BMWG IETF existing literature needs to be used to characterize the performance of a switch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios under consideration include: Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Physical port to virtual switch to physical port __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +--------------------+ | | | | | | | | | v | | Host | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | Application | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | ^ : | | | | | | | Guest | : v | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | | +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v __ +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ | | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | ^ : | | | | | | | Host | : v | | | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port __ +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | Application | | | | Application | | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | ^ | | | ^ | | | | | v | | | v | | Guests | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | | +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| ^ : ^ : | | | | : v : v _ +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | | | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | ^ | ^ | | | Host | | |-----------------| v | | | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | | +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | Application | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | ^ | | | | | | Guest | : | | | +---------------+ | | | | logical port 0| | | +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __| ^ | : __ +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | | | logical port 0| | | | +---------------+ | | | ^ | | | | | | Host | : | | | +--------------+ | | | | phy port | vSwitch | | +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __| ^ | : +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 VNF to virtual switch to physical port __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | Application | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | : | | | | | | Guest | v | | | +---------------+ | | | | logical port | | | +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __| : | v __ +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | | | logical port | | | | +---------------+ | | | : | | | | | | Host | v | | | +--------------+ | | | vSwitch | phy port | | | +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __| : | v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 VNF to virtual switch to VNF __ +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | Application | | | | Application | | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | | | ^ | | | v | | | | | Guests | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | | | 0 | | | | 0 | | | +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| : ^ | | v : _ +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | | ^ | | Host | L-----------------+ | | | | | | vSwitch | | +------------------------------------------------+_| A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test Methodology Wiki page [TestTopo]. 5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the "3x3" matrix (introduced in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]). Because the LTD specification ID names are quite long, this section is organized into lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all are occupied, also the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data plane, rather than the control plane. A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page [LTDoverV]. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 5.1. Speed of Activation o Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency 5.2. Accuracy of Activation section o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition 5.3. Reliability of Activation o Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime o Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime 5.4. Scale of Activation o Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity 5.5. Speed of Operation o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate o CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding 5.6. Accuracy of Operation o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile 5.7. Reliability of Operation o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak 5.8. Scalability of Operation o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability 5.9. Summary |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | Activation | X | X | X | X | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | Operation | X | X | X | X | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | De-activation | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| 6. Security Considerations Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections above. 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. Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. 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. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 7. IANA Considerations No IANA Action is requested at this time. 8. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge 9. References 9.1. Normative References [NFV.PER001] "Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability Best Practices", Group Specification ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06), June 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2285, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285, February 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>. [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>. [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>. [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 [RFC2889] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>. [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>. [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>. [RFC3918] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking", RFC 3918, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918>. [RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689, October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>. [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera, "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>. Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf- bmwg-virtual-net-01 (work in progress), September 2015. [IFA003] "https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/ IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/". [LTDoverV] "LTD Test Spec Overview https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/ vswitchperf_test_spec_review". [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>. [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>. [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>. [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>. [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. [TestTopo] "Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/ test_methodology". Authors' Addresses Maryam Tahhan Intel Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches October 2015 Billy O'Mahony Intel Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown,, NJ 07748 USA Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Email: acmorton@att.com URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ Tahhan, et al. Expires April 16, 2016 [Page 22]