<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> <?rfc tocdepth="3"?> <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?> <rfc category="info" docName="draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01" ipr="trust200902"> <front> <title abbrev="Benchmarking vSwitches">Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV</title> <author fullname="Maryam Tahhan" initials="M." surname="Tahhan"> <organization>Intel</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <region/> <code/> <country/> </postal> <phone/> <facsimile/> <email>maryam.tahhan@intel.com</email> <uri/> </address> </author> <author fullname="Billy O'Mahony" initials="B." surname="O'Mahony"> <organization>Intel</organization> <address> <postal> <street/> <city/> <region/> <code/> <country/> </postal> <phone/> <facsimile/> <email>billy.o.mahony@intel.com</email> <uri/> </address> </author> <author fullname="Al Morton" initials="A." surname="Morton"> <organization>AT&T Labs</organization> <address> <postal> <street>200 Laurel Avenue South</street> <city>Middletown,</city> <region>NJ</region> <code>07748</code> <country>USA</country> </postal> <phone>+1 732 420 1571</phone> <facsimile>+1 732 368 1192</facsimile> <email>acmorton@att.com</email> <uri>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/</uri> </address> </author> <date day="14" month="October" year="2015"/> <abstract> <t>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.</t> </abstract> <note title="Requirements Language"> <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t> <t/> </note> </front> <middle> <section title="Introduction"> <t>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.</t> <t>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 <xref target="RFC2544"/> (which depends on <xref target="RFC1242"/>) and foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong.</t> <t>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/</t> <t>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.</t> <t>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.</t> </section> <section title="Scope"> <t>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).</t> </section> <section title="Benchmarking Considerations"> <t>This section highlights some specific considerations (from <xref target="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.</t> <section title="Comparison with Physical Network Functions"> <t>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.</t> <t>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.</t> </section> <section title="Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks"> <t>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.</t> </section> <section title="New Configuration Parameters"> <t>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.</t> <t>Hardware details including:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Platform details</t> <t>Processor details</t> <t>Memory information (type and size)</t> <t>Number of enabled cores</t> <t>Number of cores used for the test</t> <t>Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into)</t> <t>NIC interrupt configuration</t> <t>BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were modified</t> <t>CPU microcode level</t> <t>Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations</t> <t>PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...)</t> <t>Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor package, OS...)</t> </list>Software details including:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the console on one system)</t> <t>OS version (for host and VNF)</t> <t>Kernel version (for host and VNF)</t> <t>GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)</t> <t>Hypervisor details (Type and version)</t> <t>Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used</t> <t>vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised</t> <t>Memory allocation to the vSwitch</t> <t>which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels</t> <t>DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used</t> <t>Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere</t> <t>VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non-persistent</t> <t>Number of VMs</t> <t>Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver</t> <t>Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host</t> <t>Number vNIC interrupt configuration</t> <t>Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch itself) on the host</t> <t>Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.</t> </list></t> <t>Test Traffic Information:<list style="symbols"> <t>Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other</t> <t>Packet Sizes</t> <t>Deployment Scenario</t> </list></t> <t/> </section> <section title="Flow classification"> <t>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.</t> </section> <section title="Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation"> <t>This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this time.</t> <t><list style="numbers"> <t>Baselines: <list style="symbols"> <t>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). <figure> <preamble>Benchmark platform forwarding capability</preamble> <artwork align="right"><![CDATA[ __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host | | | | | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | NIC | | | +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> <postamble/> </figure></t> <t>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. <figure align="right"> <preamble>Benchmark VNF forwarding capability</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | VNF | | | | | | | | | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host | +------------------------------------------+ | | | | NIC | | | +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> <postamble/> </figure></t> <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are SUT</t> <t>Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some resources unused</t> <t>Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied</t> </list></t> <t>Next Steps<list style="symbols"> <t>Limited sharing</t> <t>Production scenarios</t> <t>Stressful scenarios</t> </list></t> </list></t> </section> </section> <section title="VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary"> <t>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:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t><xref target="RFC2544"/> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices</t> <t><xref target="RFC2889"/> Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching</t> <t><xref target="RFC6201"/> Device Reset Characterization</t> <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement</t> </list></t> <t>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.</t> <t>In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t><xref target="RFC2285"/> Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices</t> <t><xref target="RFC5481"/> Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement</t> </list></t> <t/> <t>Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include:<list style="symbols"> <t><xref target="RFC3918"/> Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking</t> <t><xref target="RFC4737"/> Packet Reordering Metrics</t> </list></t> <t>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.</t> <t>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 <xref target="RFC2544"/> test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric derived from IPPM's <xref target="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 <xref target="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.</t> <t>Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>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.</t> <t>Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.</t> <t>Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover outliers.</t> <t>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.</t> <t>Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through the switch.</t> <t>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).</t> <t>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.</t> </list></t> <t>Future/planned test specs include:<list style="symbols"> <t>Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the transaction rate through the switch.</t> <t>Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.</t> <t>Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003 requirements <xref target="IFA003"/> on characterization of acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.</t> </list>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:</t> <t><figure> <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to physical port</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +--------------------------------------------------+ | | +--------------------+ | | | | | | | | | v | | Host | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| ^ : | | : v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> </figure></t> <t><figure> <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | 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 | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> </figure><figure> <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | | 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 | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> </figure><figure> <preamble>Physical port to virtual switch to VNF</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | Application | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | ^ | | | | | | Guest | : | | | +---------------+ | | | | logical port 0| | | +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __| ^ | : __ +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | | | logical port 0| | | | +---------------+ | | | ^ | | | | | | Host | : | | | +--------------+ | | | | phy port | vSwitch | | +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __| ^ | : +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> </figure><figure> <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to physical port</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | | Application | | | | +-------------------------------------------+ | | | : | | | | | | Guest | v | | | +---------------+ | | | | logical port | | | +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __| : | v __ +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | | | logical port | | | | +---------------+ | | | : | | | | | | Host | v | | | +--------------+ | | | vSwitch | phy port | | | +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __| : | v +--------------------------------------------------+ | | | traffic generator | | | +--------------------------------------------------+]]></artwork> </figure><figure> <preamble>VNF to virtual switch to VNF</preamble> <artwork><![CDATA[ __ +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | Application | | | | Application | | | | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | | | ^ | | | v | | | | | Guests | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | | | 0 | | | | 0 | | | +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| : ^ | | v : _ +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | | | ^ | | Host | L-----------------+ | | | | | | vSwitch | | +------------------------------------------------+_|]]></artwork> </figure></t> <t>A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test Methodology Wiki page <xref target="TestTopo"/>. </t> </section> <section title="3x3 Matrix Coverage"> <t>This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the "3x3" matrix (introduced in <xref target="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).</t> <t>The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data plane, rather than the control plane.</t> <t>A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page <xref target="LTDoverV"/>.</t> <section title="Speed of Activation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate</t> <t>PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Accuracy of Activation section"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Reliability of Activation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Scale of Activation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Speed of Operation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate</t> <t>CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Accuracy of Operation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2544.Profile</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Reliability of Operation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.Soak</t> <t>Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification</t> <t>PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Scalability of Operation"> <t><list style="symbols"> <t>Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss</t> <t>MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Summary"> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[|------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | Activation | X | X | X | X | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | Operation | X | X | X | X | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | De-activation | | | | | | | | | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|]]></artwork> </figure></t> </section> </section> <section title="Security Considerations"> <t>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.</t> <t>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.</t> <t>Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.</t> <t>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.</t> </section> <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations"> <t>No IANA Action is requested at this time.</t> </section> <section title="Acknowledgements"> <t>The authors acknowledge</t> </section> </middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> <?rfc ?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2330"?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2544'?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2679"?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3432'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2681'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5905'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4689'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4737'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5357'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2889'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3918'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6201'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2285'?> <reference anchor="NFV.PER001"> <front> <title>Network Function Virtualization: Performance and Portability Best Practices</title> <author fullname="ETSI NFV" initials="" surname=""> <organization/> </author> <date month="June" year="2014"/> </front> <seriesInfo name="Group Specification" value="ETSI GS NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06)"/> <format type="PDF"/> </reference> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.1242'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.5481'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6049'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6248'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6390'?> <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net'?> <reference anchor="TestTopo"> <front> <title>Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/test_methodology</title> <author> <organization/> </author> <date/> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="LTDoverV"> <front> <title>LTD Test Spec Overview https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/vswitchperf_test_spec_review </title> <author> <organization/> </author> <date/> </front> </reference> <reference anchor="IFA003"> <front> <title>https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/</title> <author> <organization/> </author> <date/> </front> </reference> </references> </back> </rfc>