Moved requirements to developer dir

Change-Id: I2fa9e32d4ae92aa1f075c1da8e2acb3912f3f7bc
Signed-off-by: Trevor Cooper <trevor.cooper@intel.com>

13 files changed, 8113 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7bc572ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
+http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..7fc9ae14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Copyright (c) 2016 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.
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2259b23c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,1016 @@
+<?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-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00"
+     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&amp;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="8" month="July" year="2016"/>
+
+    <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 summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
+      (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
+      "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
+      target="BrahRel"/>. 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. The authors are
+      currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
+      projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
+      acknowledge the early work in <xref
+      target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
+      discussion with the authors.</t>
+    </section>
+
+    <section title="Scope">
+      <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
+      of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
+      and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
+      virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
+      extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
+      switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
+      Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
+      commentary from BMWG and other Open Source 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
+        (5-tuple) 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&amp;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 <xref target="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&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; 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&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
+          auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
+          utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
+
+          <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
+          over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
+          at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
+          changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
+          or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
+          performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
+          testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
+          Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
+          requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
+          internal queues).</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). The current
+      version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</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 appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
+      Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
+      Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
+    </section>
+  </middle>
+
+  <back>
+    <references title="Normative References">
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
+
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?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'?>
+
+      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
+
+      <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="LTD">
+        <front>
+          <title>LTD Test Specification
+          http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
+
+          <author>
+            <organization/>
+          </author>
+
+          <date/>
+        </front>
+      </reference>
+
+      <reference anchor="BrahRel">
+        <front>
+          <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
+          https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</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>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c8a3d99b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,1027 @@
+<?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-ietf-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&amp;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="10" month="October" year="2016"/>
+
+    <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 summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
+      (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
+      "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
+      target="BrahRel"/>. 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. The authors are
+      currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
+      projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
+      acknowledge the early work in <xref
+      target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
+      discussion with the authors.</t>
+    </section>
+
+    <section title="Scope">
+      <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
+      of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
+      and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
+      virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
+      extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
+      switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
+      Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
+      commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
+      chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure (a virtual switch
+      is an important aspect of that infrastructure).</t>
+
+      <t>The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many
+      types of vswitches, and remain vswitch-agnostic to great degree. There
+      has been no attempt to track and test all features of any specific
+      vswitch implementation.</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
+        (5-tuple) 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&amp;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 <xref target="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&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; 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&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
+          auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
+          utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
+
+          <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
+          over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, but
+          only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when
+          found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT
+          exhibits instability over time). The key performance characteristics
+          and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using short duration tests)
+          prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose of soak tests is to
+          capture transient changes in performance which may occur due to
+          infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the low probability
+          coincidence of two or more processes. The stability of the DUT is
+          the paramount consideration, so performance must be evaluated
+          periodically during continuous testing, and this results in use of
+          <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame Rate metrics instead of <xref
+          target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which requires stopping traffic to
+          allow time for all traffic to exit internal queues), for
+          example.</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). The current
+      version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</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 appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
+      Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
+      Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
+    </section>
+  </middle>
+
+  <back>
+    <references title="Normative References">
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
+
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?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'?>
+
+      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
+
+      <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="LTD">
+        <front>
+          <title>LTD Test Specification
+          http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/brahmaputra/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
+
+          <author>
+            <organization/>
+          </author>
+
+          <date/>
+        </front>
+      </reference>
+
+      <reference anchor="BrahRel">
+        <front>
+          <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
+          https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</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>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b5f7f833
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,964 @@
+<?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&amp;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&amp;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&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; 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&rsquo;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>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a9405a77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-01.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,1016 @@
+<?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-02"
+     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&amp;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="20" month="March" year="2016"/>
+
+    <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 summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
+      (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
+      "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
+      target="BrahRel"/>. 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. The authors are
+      currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
+      projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
+      acknowledge the early work in <xref
+      target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
+      discussion with the authors.</t>
+    </section>
+
+    <section title="Scope">
+      <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
+      of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
+      and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
+      virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
+      extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
+      switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
+      Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
+      commentary from BMWG and other Open Source 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&amp;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 <xref target="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&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; 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&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
+          auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
+          utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
+
+          <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
+          over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
+          at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
+          changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
+          or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
+          performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
+          testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
+          Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
+          requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
+          internal queues).</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). The current
+      version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</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 appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
+      Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, and Doug Montgomery, and others for
+      their reviews.</t>
+    </section>
+  </middle>
+
+  <back>
+    <references title="Normative References">
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
+
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?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'?>
+
+      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
+
+      <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="LTD">
+        <front>
+          <title>LTD Test Specification
+          http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
+
+          <author>
+            <organization/>
+          </author>
+
+          <date/>
+        </front>
+      </reference>
+
+      <reference anchor="BrahRel">
+        <front>
+          <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
+          https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</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>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..9157763e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,1016 @@
+<?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-02"
+     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&amp;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="21" month="March" year="2016"/>
+
+    <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 summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
+      (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
+      "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release <xref
+      target="BrahRel"/>. 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. The authors are
+      currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
+      projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
+      acknowledge the early work in <xref
+      target="I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance"/>, and useful
+      discussion with the authors.</t>
+    </section>
+
+    <section title="Scope">
+      <t>The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
+      of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature
+      and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking
+      virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many of these
+      extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to hardware
+      switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example).
+      Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and
+      commentary from BMWG and other Open Source 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&amp;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 <xref target="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&rsquo;s configuration&hellip; 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&rsquo;s footprint on the system, usually conducted as
+          auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
+          utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.</t>
+
+          <t>The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
+          over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, and
+          at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient
+          changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes
+          or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
+          performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
+          testing, and this results in use of <xref target="RFC2889"/> Frame
+          Rate metrics instead of <xref target="RFC2544"/> Throughput (which
+          requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit
+          internal queues).</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). The current
+      version of the LTD specification is available <xref target="LTD"/>.</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 appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
+      Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
+      Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.</t>
+    </section>
+  </middle>
+
+  <back>
+    <references title="Normative References">
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
+
+      <?rfc ?>
+
+      <?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'?>
+
+      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance'?>
+
+      <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="LTD">
+        <front>
+          <title>LTD Test Specification
+          http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/index.html</title>
+
+          <author>
+            <organization/>
+          </author>
+
+          <date/>
+        </front>
+      </reference>
+
+      <reference anchor="BrahRel">
+        <front>
+          <title>Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release
+          https://www.opnfv.org/brahmaputra</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>
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d21334ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3a85e51f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_benchmark.png
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..b5b76e8a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..55294af6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e1372520
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1712 @@
+.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
+.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
+.. (c) OPNFV, Intel Corporation, AT&T and others.
+
+******************************
+VSPERF LEVEL TEST DESIGN (LTD)
+******************************
+
+.. 3.1
+
+============
+Introduction
+============
+
+The intention of this Level Test Design (LTD) document is to specify the set of
+tests to carry out in order to objectively measure the current characteristics
+of a virtual switch in the Network Function Virtualization Infrastructure
+(NFVI) as well as the test pass criteria. The detailed test cases will be
+defined in details-of-LTD_, preceded by the doc-id-of-LTD_ and the scope-of-LTD_.
+
+This document is currently in draft form.
+
+.. 3.1.1
+
+
+.. _doc-id-of-LTD:
+
+Document identifier
+===================
+
+The document id will be used to uniquely
+identify versions of the LTD. The format for the document id will be:
+OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTD\_REL\_STATUS, where by the
+status is one of: draft, reviewed, corrected or final. The document id
+for this version of the LTD is:
+OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTD\_Brahmaputra\_REVIEWED.
+
+.. 3.1.2
+
+.. _scope-of-LTD:
+
+Scope
+=====
+
+The main purpose of this project is to specify a suite of
+performance tests in order to objectively measure the current packet
+transfer characteristics of a virtual switch in the NFVI. The intent of
+the project is to facilitate testing of any virtual switch. Thus, a
+generic suite of tests shall be developed, with no hard dependencies to
+a single implementation. In addition, the test case suite shall be
+architecture independent.
+
+The test cases developed in this project shall not form part of a
+separate test framework, all of these tests may be inserted into the
+Continuous Integration Test Framework and/or the Platform Functionality
+Test Framework - if a vSwitch becomes a standard component of an OPNFV
+release.
+
+.. 3.1.3
+
+References
+==========
+
+*  `RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2889.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast
+   Benchmarking <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3918.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 4737 Packet Reordering
+   Metrics <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4737.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability
+   Statement <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 6201 Device Reset
+   Characterization <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6201>`__
+
+.. 3.2
+
+.. _details-of-LTD:
+
+================================
+Details of the Level Test Design
+================================
+
+This section describes the features to be tested (FeaturesToBeTested-of-LTD_), and
+identifies the sets of test cases or scenarios (TestIdentification-of-LTD_).
+
+.. 3.2.1
+
+.. _FeaturesToBeTested-of-LTD:
+
+Features to be tested
+=====================
+
+Characterizing virtual switches (i.e. Device Under Test (DUT) in this document)
+includes measuring the following performance metrics:
+
+- Throughput
+- Packet delay
+- Packet delay variation
+- Packet loss
+- Burst behaviour
+- Packet re-ordering
+- Packet correctness
+- Availability and capacity of the DUT
+
+.. 3.2.2
+
+.. _TestIdentification-of-LTD:
+
+Test identification
+===================
+
+.. 3.2.2.1
+
+Throughput tests
+----------------
+
+The following tests aim to determine the maximum forwarding rate that
+can be achieved with a virtual switch. The list is not exhaustive but
+should indicate the type of tests that should be required. It is
+expected that more will be added.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.1
+
+.. _PacketLossRatio:
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
+    loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
+    The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
+
+    Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
+
+    The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+    The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
+
+    Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+    test methodology, the test duration will
+    include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
+    of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
+    trial to obtain the final result.
+
+    **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
+    of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
+    converging on a maximum rate, or
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
+    loss.
+    The Throughput load is re-used in related
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
+    tests.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.2
+
+.. _PacketLossRatioFrameModification:
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss Throughput and Latency Test with
+    packet modification
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
+    loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
+    The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
+
+    Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
+
+    The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+    The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
+
+    Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+    test methodology, the test duration will
+    include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
+    of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
+    trial to obtain the final result.
+
+    During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on the
+    traffic flow:
+
+    -  Perform packet parsing on the DUT's ingress port.
+    -  Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT's ingress ports.
+    -  Modify the packet header before forwarding the packet to the DUT's
+       egress port. Packet modifications include:
+
+       -  Modifying the Ethernet source or destination MAC address.
+       -  Modifying/adding a VLAN tag. (**Recommended**).
+       -  Modifying/adding a MPLS tag.
+       -  Modifying the source or destination ip address.
+       -  Modifying the TOS/DSCP field.
+       -  Modifying the source or destination ports for UDP/TCP/SCTP.
+       -  Modifying the TTL.
+
+    **Expected Result**: The Packet parsing/modifications require some
+    additional degree of processing resource, therefore the
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+    Throughput is expected to be somewhat lower than the Throughput level
+    measured without additional steps. The reduction is expected to be
+    greatest on tests with the smallest packet sizes (greatest header
+    processing rates).
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss and packet
+       modification operations being performed by the DUT.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+       PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
+       using the 99th percentile.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.3
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 Throughput and Latency Profile
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test reveals how throughput and latency degrades as the offered
+    rate varies in the region of the DUT's maximum forwarding rate as
+    determined by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss).
+    For example it can be used to determine if the degradation of throughput
+    and latency as the offered rate increases is slow and graceful or sudden
+    and severe.
+
+    The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+
+    The offered traffic rate is described as a percentage delta with respect
+    to the DUT's RFC 2544 Throughput as determined by
+    LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLoss Ratio (0% Packet Loss case). A delta
+    of 0% is equivalent to an offered traffic rate equal to the RFC 2544
+    Maximum Throughput; A delta of +50% indicates an offered rate half-way
+    between the Maximum RFC2544 Throughput and line-rate, whereas a delta of
+    -50% indicates an offered rate of half the RFC 2544 Maximum Throughput.
+    Therefore the range of the delta figure is natuarlly bounded at -100%
+    (zero offered traffic) and +100% (traffic offered at line rate).
+
+    The following deltas to the maximum forwarding rate should be applied:
+
+    -  -50%, -10%, 0%, +10% & +50%
+
+    **Expected Result**: For each packet size a profile should be produced
+    of how throughput and latency vary with offered rate.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of the DUT
+       for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and for each frame
+       size.
+    -  The average latency for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and
+       for each frame size.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+    -  Any failures experienced (for example if the vSwitch crashes, stops
+       processing packets, restarts or becomes unresponsive to commands)
+       when the offered load is above Maximum Throughput MUST be recorded
+       and reported with the results.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.4
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 System Recovery Time Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test** LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine the length of time it takes the DUT
+    to recover from an overload condition for a constant load (fixed length
+    frames at a fixed interval time). The selected frame sizes are those
+    previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`,
+    traffic should be sent to the DUT under normal conditions. During the
+    duration of the test and while the traffic flows are passing though the
+    DUT, at least one situation leading to an overload condition for the DUT
+    should occur. The time from the end of the overload condition to when
+    the DUT returns to normal operations should be measured to determine
+    recovery time. Prior to overloading the DUT, one should record the
+    average latency for 10,000 packets forwarded through the DUT.
+
+    The overload condition SHOULD be to transmit traffic at a very high
+    frame rate to the DUT (150% of the maximum 0% packet loss rate as
+    determined by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio or line-rate
+    whichever is lower), for at least 60 seconds, then reduce the frame rate
+    to 75% of the maximum 0% packet loss rate. A number of time-stamps
+    should be recorded: - Record the time-stamp at which the frame rate was
+    reduced and record a second time-stamp at the time of the last frame
+    lost. The recovery time is the difference between the two timestamps. -
+    Record the average latency for 10,000 frames after the last frame loss
+    and continue to record average latency measurements for every 10,000
+    frames, when latency returns to within 10% of pre-overload levels record
+    the time-stamp.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics collected**
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The length of time it takes the DUT to recover from an overload
+       condition.
+    -  The length of time it takes the DUT to recover the average latency to
+       pre-overload conditions.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.5
+
+.. _BackToBackFrames:
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2544 Back To Back Frames Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to characterize the ability of the DUT to
+    process back-to-back frames. For each frame size previously defined
+    under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, a burst of traffic
+    is sent to the DUT with the minimum inter-frame gap between each frame.
+    If the number of received frames equals the number of frames that were
+    transmitted, the burst size should be increased and traffic is sent to
+    the DUT again. The value measured is the back-to-back value, that is the
+    maximum burst size the DUT can handle without any frame loss. Please note
+    a trial must run for a minimum of 2 seconds and should be repeated 50
+    times (at a minimum).
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    Tests of back-to-back frames with physical devices have produced
+    unstable results in some cases. All tests should be repeated in multiple
+    test sessions and results stability should be examined.
+
+    **Metrics collected**
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The average back-to-back value across the trials, which is
+       the number of frames in the longest burst that the DUT will
+       handle without the loss of any frames.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.6
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRateSoak
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2889 X% packet loss Max Forwarding Rate Soak Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test** LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand the Max Forwarding Rate stability
+    over an extended test duration in order to uncover any outliers. To allow
+    for an extended test duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours
+    or, if this is not possible, for at least 6 hours. For this test, each frame
+    size must be sent at the highest Throughput rate with X% packet loss, as
+    determined in the prerequisite test. The default loss percentages to be
+    tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
+
+    Note: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Max Forwarding Rate stability of the DUT.
+
+       -  This means reporting the number of packets lost per time interval
+          and reporting any time intervals with packet loss. The
+          `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
+          Forwarding Rate shall be measured in each interval.
+          An interval of 60s is suggested.
+
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+    -  The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+       PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
+       using the 99th percentile.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.7
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRateSoakFrameModification
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2889 Max Forwarding Rate Soak Test with Frame Modification
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**:
+    LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification (0% Packet Loss)
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand the Max Forwarding Rate stability over an
+    extended test duration in order to uncover any outliers. To allow for an
+    extended test duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours or, if
+    this is not possible, for at least 6 hour. For this test, each frame
+    size must be sent at the highest Throughput rate with 0% packet loss, as
+    determined in the prerequisite test.
+
+    During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on the
+    traffic flow:
+
+    -  Perform packet parsing on the DUT's ingress port.
+    -  Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT's ingress ports.
+    -  Modify the packet header before forwarding the packet to the DUT's
+       egress port. Packet modifications include:
+
+       -  Modifying the Ethernet source or destination MAC address.
+       -  Modifying/adding a VLAN tag (**Recommended**).
+       -  Modifying/adding a MPLS tag.
+       -  Modifying the source or destination ip address.
+       -  Modifying the TOS/DSCP field.
+       -  Modifying the source or destination ports for UDP/TCP/SCTP.
+       -  Modifying the TTL.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Max Forwarding Rate stability of the DUT.
+
+       -  This means reporting the number of packets lost per time interval
+          and reporting any time intervals with packet loss. The
+          `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
+          Forwarding Rate shall be measured in each interval.
+          An interval of 60s is suggested.
+
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+    -  The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+       PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow, using the 99th
+       percentile.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.8
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC6201.ResetTime
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 6201 Reset Time Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine the length of time it takes the DUT
+    to recover from a reset.
+
+    Two reset methods are defined - planned and unplanned. A planned reset
+    requires stopping and restarting the virtual switch by the usual
+    'graceful' method defined by it's documentation. An unplanned reset
+    requires simulating a fatal internal fault in the virtual switch - for
+    example by using kill -SIGKILL on a Linux environment.
+
+    Both reset methods SHOULD be exercised.
+
+    For each frame size previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`,
+    traffic should be sent to the DUT under
+    normal conditions. During the duration of the test and while the traffic
+    flows are passing through the DUT, the DUT should be reset and the Reset
+    time measured. The Reset time is the total time that a device is
+    determined to be out of operation and includes the time to perform the
+    reset and the time to recover from it (cf. `RFC6201
+    <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__).
+
+    `RFC6201 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ defines two methods
+    to measure the Reset time:
+
+      - Frame-Loss Method: which requires the monitoring of the number of
+        lost frames and calculates the Reset time based on the number of
+        frames lost and the offered rate according to the following
+        formula:
+
+        .. code-block:: console
+
+                                    Frames_lost (packets)
+                 Reset_time = -------------------------------------
+                                Offered_rate (packets per second)
+
+      - Timestamp Method: which measures the time from which the last frame
+        is forwarded from the DUT to the time the first frame is forwarded
+        after the reset. This involves time-stamping all transmitted frames
+        and recording the timestamp of the last frame that was received prior
+        to the reset and also measuring the timestamp of the first frame that
+        is received after the reset. The Reset time is the difference between
+        these two timestamps.
+
+    According to `RFC6201 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ the
+    choice of method depends on the test tool's capability; the Frame-Loss
+    method SHOULD be used if the test tool supports:
+
+     * Counting the number of lost frames per stream.
+     * Transmitting test frame despite the physical link status.
+
+    whereas the Timestamp method SHOULD be used if the test tool supports:
+
+     * Timestamping each frame.
+     * Monitoring received frame's timestamp.
+     * Transmitting frames only if the physical link status is up.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics collected**
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+     * Average Reset Time over the number of trials performed.
+
+    Results of this test should include the following information:
+
+     * The reset method used.
+     * Throughput in Fps and Mbps.
+     * Average Frame Loss over the number of trials performed.
+     * Average Reset Time in milliseconds over the number of trials performed.
+     * Number of trials performed.
+     * Protocol: IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, etc.
+     * Frame Size in Octets
+     * Port Media: Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet (GbE), etc.
+     * Port Speed: 10 Gbps, 40 Gbps etc.
+     * Interface Encapsulation: Ethernet, Ethernet VLAN, etc.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    * Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.9
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Forwarding Rate Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test measures the DUT's Max Forwarding Rate when the Offered Load
+    is varied between the throughput and the Maximum Offered Load for fixed
+    length frames at a fixed time interval. The selected frame sizes are
+    those previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+    The throughput is the maximum offered
+    load with 0% frame loss (measured by the prerequisite test), and the
+    Maximum Offered Load (as defined by
+    `RFC2285 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__) is *"the highest
+    number of frames per second that an external source can transmit to a
+    DUT/SUT for forwarding to a specified output interface or interfaces"*.
+
+    Traffic should be sent to the DUT at a particular rate (TX rate)
+    starting with TX rate equal to the throughput rate. The rate of
+    successfully received frames at the destination counted (in FPS). If the
+    RX rate is equal to the TX rate, the TX rate should be increased by a
+    fixed step size and the RX rate measured again until the Max Forwarding
+    Rate is found.
+
+    The trial duration for each iteration should last for the period of time
+    needed for the system to reach steady state for the frame size being
+    tested. Under `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
+    (Sec. 5.6.3.1) test methodology, the test
+    duration should run for a minimum period of 30 seconds, regardless
+    whether the system reaches steady state before the minimum duration
+    ends.
+
+    **Expected Result**: According to
+    `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__ The Max Forwarding
+    Rate is the highest forwarding rate of a DUT taken from an iterative set of
+    forwarding rate measurements. The iterative set of forwarding rate measurements
+    are made by setting the intended load transmitted from an external source and
+    measuring the offered load (i.e what the DUT is capable of forwarding). If the
+    Throughput == the Maximum Offered Load, it follows that Max Forwarding Rate is
+    equal to the Maximum Offered Load.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The Max Forwarding Rate for the DUT for each packet size.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical. Note: Full mesh tests with
+       multiple ingress and egress ports are a key aspect of RFC 2889
+       benchmarks, and scenarios with both 2 and 4 ports should be tested.
+       In any case, the number of ports used must be reported.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.10
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Forward Pressure Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine if the DUT transmits frames with an
+    inter-frame gap that is less than 12 bytes. This test overloads the DUT
+    and measures the output for forward pressure. Traffic should be
+    transmitted to the DUT with an inter-frame gap of 11 bytes, this will
+    overload the DUT by 1 byte per frame. The forwarding rate of the DUT
+    should be measured.
+
+    **Expected Result**: The forwarding rate should not exceed the maximum
+    forwarding rate of the DUT collected by
+    LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate.
+
+    **Metrics collected**
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Forwarding rate of the DUT in FPS or Mbps.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.11
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Error Frames Filtering Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine whether the DUT will propagate any
+    erroneous frames it receives or whether it is capable of filtering out
+    the erroneous frames. Traffic should be sent with erroneous frames
+    included within the flow at random intervals. Illegal frames that must
+    be tested include: - Oversize Frames. - Undersize Frames. - CRC Errored
+    Frames. - Dribble Bit Errored Frames - Alignment Errored Frames
+
+    The traffic flow exiting the DUT should be recorded and checked to
+    determine if the erroneous frames where passed through the DUT.
+
+    **Expected Result**: Broken frames are not passed!
+
+    **Metrics collected**
+
+    No Metrics are collected in this test, instead it determines:
+
+    -  Whether the DUT will propagate erroneous frames.
+    -  Or whether the DUT will correctly filter out any erroneous frames
+       from traffic flow with out removing correct frames.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.12
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Broadcast Frame Forwarding Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine the maximum forwarding rate of the
+    DUT when forwarding broadcast traffic. For each frame previously defined
+    under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, the traffic should
+    be set up as broadcast traffic. The traffic throughput of the DUT should
+    be measured.
+
+    The test should be conducted with at least 4 physical ports on the DUT.
+    The number of ports used MUST be recorded.
+
+    As broadcast involves forwarding a single incoming packet to several
+    destinations, the latency of a single packet is defined as the average
+    of the latencies for each of the broadcast destinations.
+
+    The incoming packet is transmitted on each of the other physical ports,
+    it is not transmitted on the port on which it was received. The test MAY
+    be conducted using different broadcasting ports to uncover any
+    performance differences.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The forwarding rate of the DUT when forwarding broadcast traffic.
+    -  The minimum, average & maximum packets latencies observed.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch 3x physical. In the Broadcast rate testing,
+       four test ports are required. One of the ports is connected to the test
+       device, so it can send broadcast frames and listen for miss-routed frames.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.13
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: Modified RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test determines the DUT's maximum forwarding rate with X% traffic
+    loss for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
+    The default loss percentages to be tested are: X = 0%, X = 10^-7%
+
+    Modified RFC 2544 throughput benchmarking methodology aims to quantify
+    the throughput measurement variations observed during standard RFC 2544
+    benchmarking measurements of virtual switches and VNFs. The RFC2544
+    binary search algorithm is modified to use more samples per test trial
+    to drive the binary search and yield statistically more meaningful
+    results. This keeps the heart of the RFC2544 methodology, still relying
+    on the binary search of throughput at specified loss tolerance, while
+    providing more useful information about the range of results seen in
+    testing. Instead of using a single traffic trial per iteration step,
+    each traffic trial is repeated N times and the success/failure of the
+    iteration step is based on these N traffic trials. Two types of revised
+    tests are defined - *Worst-of-N* and *Best-of-N*.
+
+    **Worst-of-N**
+
+    *Worst-of-N* indicates the lowest expected maximum throughput for (
+    packet size, loss tolerance) when repeating the test.
+
+    1.  Repeat the same test run N times at a set packet rate, record each
+        result.
+    2.  Take the WORST result (highest packet loss) out of N result samples,
+        called the Worst-of-N sample.
+    3.  If Worst-of-N sample has loss less than the set loss tolerance, then
+        the step is successful - increase the test traffic rate.
+    4.  If Worst-of-N sample has loss greater than the set loss tolerance
+        then the step failed - decrease the test traffic rate.
+    5.  Go to step 1.
+
+    **Best-of-N**
+
+    *Best-of-N* indicates the highest expected maximum throughput for (
+    packet size, loss tolerance) when repeating the test.
+
+    1.  Repeat the same traffic run N times at a set packet rate, record
+        each result.
+    2.  Take the BEST result (least packet loss) out of N result samples,
+        called the Best-of-N sample.
+    3.  If Best-of-N sample has loss less than the set loss tolerance, then
+        the step is successful - increase the test traffic rate.
+    4.  If Best-of-N sample has loss greater than the set loss tolerance,
+        then the step failed - decrease the test traffic rate.
+    5.  Go to step 1.
+
+    Performing both Worst-of-N and Best-of-N benchmark tests yields lower
+    and upper bounds of expected maximum throughput under the operating
+    conditions, giving a very good indication to the user of the
+    deterministic performance range for the tested setup.
+
+    **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial series, the presence or
+    absence of loss determines the modification of offered load for the
+    next trial series, converging on a maximum rate, or
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput
+    with X% loss.
+    The Throughput load is re-used in related
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
+    tests.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  Following may also be collected as part of this test, to determine
+       the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system:
+
+      -  CPU core utilization.
+      -  CPU cache utilization.
+      -  Memory footprint.
+      -  System bus (QPI, PCI, ...) utilization.
+      -  CPU cycles consumed per packet.
+
+.. 3.2.2.1.14
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+       **Title**: <tech> Overlay Network RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and Latency Test
+
+
+       NOTE: Throughout this test, four interchangeable overlay technologies are covered by the
+       same test description.  They are: VXLAN, GRE, NVGRE and GENEVE.
+
+      **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+      **Priority**:
+
+      **Description**:
+      This test evaluates standard switch performance benchmarks for the scenario where an
+      Overlay Network is deployed for all paths through the vSwitch. Overlay Technologies covered
+      (replacing <tech> in the test name) include:
+
+      - VXLAN
+      - GRE
+      - NVGRE
+      - GENEVE
+
+      Performance will be assessed for each of the following overlay network functions:
+
+      - Encapsulation only
+      - De-encapsulation only
+      - Both Encapsulation and De-encapsulation
+
+      For each native packet, the DUT must perform the following operations:
+
+      - Examine the packet and classify its correct overlay net (tunnel) assignment
+      - Encapsulate the packet
+      - Switch the packet to the correct port
+
+      For each encapsulated packet, the DUT must perform the following operations:
+
+      - Examine the packet and classify its correct native network assignment
+      - De-encapsulate the packet, if required
+      - Switch the packet to the correct port
+
+    The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+
+    Thus, each test comprises an overlay technology, a network function,
+    and a packet size *with* overlay network overhead included
+    (but see also the discussion at
+    https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/vSwitchTestsDrafts ).
+
+    The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
+
+    Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+    test methodology, the test duration will
+    include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
+    of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
+    trial to obtain the final result for Throughput.
+
+    **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
+    of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
+    converging on a maximum rate, or
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
+    loss (where the value of X is typically equal to zero).
+    The Throughput load is re-used in related
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
+    tests.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       and VNFs (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+.. 3.2.3.1.15
+
+Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.MatchAction.PacketLossRatio
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio match action Throughput and Latency Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to determine the cost of carrying out match
+    action(s) on the DUT’s RFC2544 Throughput with X% traffic loss for
+    a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time).
+
+    Each test case requires:
+
+         * selection of a specific match action(s),
+         * specifying a percentage of total traffic that is elligible
+           for the match action,
+         * determination of the specific test configuration (number
+           of flows, number of test ports, presence of an external
+           controller, etc.), and
+         * measurement of the RFC 2544 Throughput level with X% packet
+           loss: Traffic shall be bi-directional and symmetric.
+
+    Note: It would be ideal to verify that all match action-elligible
+    traffic was forwarded to the correct port, and if forwarded to
+    an unintended port it should be considered lost.
+
+    A match action is an action that is typically carried on a frame
+    or packet that matches a set of flow classification parameters
+    (typically frame/packet header fields). A match action may or may
+    not modify a packet/frame. Match actions include [1]:
+
+         * output : outputs a packet to a particular port.
+         * normal: Subjects the packet to traditional L2/L3 processing
+           (MAC learning).
+         * flood: Outputs the packet on all switch physical ports
+           other than the port on which it was received and any ports
+           on which flooding is disabled.
+         * all: Outputs the packet on all switch physical ports other
+           than the port on which it was received.
+         * local: Outputs  the packet on the ``local port``, which
+           corresponds to the network device that has the same name as
+           the bridge.
+         * in_port: Outputs the packet on the port from which it was
+           received.
+         * Controller: Sends the packet and its metadata to the
+           OpenFlow controller as a ``packet in`` message.
+         * enqueue: Enqueues  the  packet  on the specified queue
+           within port.
+         * drop: discard the packet.
+
+   Modifications include [1]:
+
+         * mod vlan: covered by LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
+         * mod_dl_src: Sets the source Ethernet address.
+         * mod_dl_dst: Sets the destination Ethernet address.
+         * mod_nw_src: Sets the IPv4 source address.
+         * mod_nw_dst: Sets the IPv4 destination address.
+         * mod_tp_src: Sets the TCP or UDP or SCTP source port.
+         * mod_tp_dst: Sets the TCP or UDP or SCTP destination port.
+         * mod_nw_tos: Sets the  DSCP bits in the IPv4 ToS/DSCP or
+           IPv6 traffic class field.
+         * mod_nw_ecn: Sets the ECN bits in the appropriate IPv4 or
+           IPv6 field.
+         * mod_nw_ttl: Sets the IPv4 TTL or IPv6 hop limit field.
+
+    Note: This comprehensive list requires extensive traffic generator
+    capabilities.
+
+    The match action(s) that were applied as part of the test should be
+    reported in the final test report.
+
+    During this test, the DUT must perform the following operations on
+    the traffic flow:
+
+        * Perform packet parsing on the DUT’s ingress port.
+        * Perform any relevant address look-ups on the DUT’s ingress
+          ports.
+        * Carry out one or more of the match actions specified above.
+
+    The default loss percentages to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7%
+    Other values can be tested if required by the user. The selected
+    frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+
+    The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the
+    traffic when a match action is applied to packets in a flow. Under
+    the RFC2544 test methodology, the test duration will include a
+    number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period of 60
+    seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
+    trial to obtain the final result.
+
+    **Expected Result:**
+
+    At the end of each trial, the presence or absence of loss
+    determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
+    converging on a maximum rate, or RFC2544Throughput with X% loss.
+    The Throughput load is re-used in related RFC2544 tests and other
+    tests.
+
+    **Metrics Collected:**
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+        * The RFC 2544 Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps
+          of the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
+        * The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through
+          the DUT (if testing for latency, note that this average is
+          different from the test specified in Section 26.3 ofRFC2544).
+        * CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of
+          this test, to determine the vSwitch’s performance footprint
+          on the system.
+
+    The metrics collected can be compared to that of the prerequisite
+    test to determine the cost of the match action(s) in the pipeline.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical (and others are possible)
+
+    [1] ovs-ofctl - administer OpenFlow switches
+        [http://openvswitch.org/support/dist-docs/ovs-ofctl.8.txt ]
+
+
+.. 3.2.2.2
+
+Packet Latency tests
+--------------------
+
+These tests will measure the store and forward latency as well as the packet
+delay variation for various packet types through the virtual switch. The
+following list is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests
+that should be required. It is expected that more will be added.
+
+.. 3.2.2.2.1
+
+Test ID: LTD.PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: Initial Packet Processing Latency
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    In some virtual switch architectures, the first packets of a flow will
+    take the system longer to process than subsequent packets in the flow.
+    This test determines the latency for these packets. The test will
+    measure the latency of the packets as they are processed by the
+    flow-setup-path of the DUT. There are two methods for this test, a
+    recommended method and a nalternative method that can be used if it is
+    possible to disable the fastpath of the virtual switch.
+
+    Recommended method: This test will send 64,000 packets to the DUT, each
+    belonging to a different flow. Average packet latency will be determined
+    over the 64,000 packets.
+
+    Alternative method: This test will send a single packet to the DUT after
+    a fixed interval of time. The time interval will be equivalent to the
+    amount of time it takes for a flow to time out in the virtual switch
+    plus 10%. Average packet latency will be determined over 1,000,000
+    packets.
+
+    This test is intended only for non-learning virtual switches; For learning
+    virtual switches use RFC2889.
+
+    For this test, only unidirectional traffic is required.
+
+    **Expected Result**: The average latency for the initial packet of all
+    flows should be greater than the latency of subsequent traffic.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Average latency of the initial packets of all flows that are
+       processed by the DUT.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → Virtual Switch → Physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.2.2
+
+Test ID: LTD.PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: Packet Delay Variation Soak Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Tests**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss)
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand the distribution of packet delay
+    variation for different frame sizes over an extended test duration and
+    to determine if there are any outliers. To allow for an extended test
+    duration, the test should ideally run for 24 hours or, if this is not
+    possible, for at least 6 hour. For this test, each frame size must be
+    sent at the highest possible throughput with 0% packet loss, as
+    determined in the prerequisite test.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The packet delay variation value for traffic passing through the DUT.
+    -  The `RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+       PDV form of delay variation on the traffic flow,
+       using the 99th percentile, for each 60s interval during the test.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+.. 3.2.2.3
+
+Scalability tests
+-----------------
+
+The general aim of these tests is to understand the impact of large flow
+table size and flow lookups on throughput. The following list is not
+exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that should be required.
+It is expected that more will be added.
+
+.. 3.2.2.3.1
+
+.. _Scalability0PacketLoss:
+
+Test ID: LTD.Scalability.Flows.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 0% loss Flow Scalability throughput test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio, IF the
+    delta Throughput between the single-flow RFC2544 test and this test with
+    a variable number of flows is desired.
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to measure how throughput changes as the number
+    of flows in the DUT increases. The test will measure the throughput
+    through the fastpath, as such the flows need to be installed on the DUT
+    before passing traffic.
+
+    For each frame size previously defined under :ref:`default-test-parameters`
+    and for each of the following number of flows:
+
+    -  1,000
+    -  2,000
+    -  4,000
+    -  8,000
+    -  16,000
+    -  32,000
+    -  64,000
+    -  Max supported number of flows.
+
+    This test will be conducted under two conditions following the
+    establishment of all flows as required by RFC 2544, regarding the flow
+    expiration time-out:
+
+    1) The time-out never expires during each trial.
+
+    2) The time-out expires for all flows periodically. This would require a
+    short time-out compared with flow re-appearance for a small number of
+    flows, and may not be possible for all flow conditions.
+
+    The maximum 0% packet loss Throughput should be determined in a manner
+    identical to LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum number of frames per second that can be forwarded at the
+       specified number of flows and the specified frame size, with zero
+       packet loss.
+
+.. 3.2.2.3.2
+
+Test ID: LTD.MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 0% loss Memory Bandwidth Scalability test
+
+    **Prerequisite Tests**: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio, IF the
+    delta Throughput between an undisturbed RFC2544 test and this test with
+    the Throughput affected by cache and memory bandwidth contention is desired.
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand how the DUT's performance is
+    affected by cache sharing and memory bandwidth between processes.
+
+    During the test all cores not used by the vSwitch should be running a
+    memory intensive application. This application should read and write
+    random data to random addresses in unused physical memory. The random
+    nature of the data and addresses is intended to consume cache, exercise
+    main memory access (as opposed to cache) and exercise all memory buses
+    equally. Furthermore:
+
+    - the ratio of reads to writes should be recorded. A ratio of 1:1
+      SHOULD be used.
+    - the reads and writes MUST be of cache-line size and be cache-line aligned.
+    - in NUMA architectures memory access SHOULD be local to the core's node.
+      Whether only local memory or a mix of local and remote memory is used
+      MUST be recorded.
+    - the memory bandwidth (reads plus writes) used per-core MUST be recorded;
+      the test MUST be run with a per-core memory bandwidth equal to half the
+      maximum system memory bandwidth divided by the number of cores. The test
+      MAY be run with other values for the per-core memory bandwidth.
+    - the test MAY also be run with the memory intensive application running
+      on all cores.
+
+    Under these conditions the DUT's 0% packet loss throughput is determined
+    as per LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The DUT's 0% packet loss throughput in the presence of cache sharing and
+       memory bandwidth between processes.
+
+.. 3.2.2.3.3
+
+Test ID: LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: VNF Scalability RFC 2544 X% packet loss ratio Throughput and
+               Latency Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    This test determines the DUT's throughput rate with X% traffic loss for
+    a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed interval time) when the
+    number of VNFs on the DUT increases. The default loss percentages
+    to be tested are: - X = 0% - X = 10^-7% . The minimum number of
+    VNFs to be tested are 3.
+
+    Flow classification should be conducted with L2, L3 and L4 matching
+    to understand the matching and scaling capability of the vSwitch. The
+    matching fields which were used as part of the test should be reported
+    as part of the benchmark report.
+
+    The vSwitch is responsible for forwarding frames between the VNFs
+
+    The SUT (vSwitch and VNF daisy chain) operation should be validated
+    before running the test. This may be completed by running a burst or
+    continuous stream of traffic through the SUT to ensure proper operation
+    before a test.
+
+    **Note**: The traffic rate used to validate SUT operation should be low
+    enough not to stress the SUT.
+
+    **Note**: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
+
+    **Note**: The same VNF should be used in the "daisy chain" formation.
+    Each addition of a VNF should be conducted in a new test setup (The DUT
+    is brought down, then the DUT is brought up again). An atlernative approach
+    would be to continue to add VNFs without bringing down the DUT. The
+    approach used needs to be documented as part of the test report.
+
+    The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+    :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+    The test can also be used to determine the average latency of the traffic.
+
+    Under the `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+    test methodology, the test duration will
+    include a number of trials; each trial should run for a minimum period
+    of 60 seconds. A binary search methodology must be applied for each
+    trial to obtain the final result for Throughput.
+
+    **Expected Result**: At the end of each trial, the presence or absence
+    of loss determines the modification of offered load for the next trial,
+    converging on a maximum rate, or
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ Throughput with X%
+    loss.
+    The Throughput load is re-used in related
+    `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__ tests and other
+    tests.
+
+    If the test VNFs are rather light-weight in terms of processing, the test
+    provides a view of multiple passes through the vswitch on logical
+    interfaces. In other words, the test produces an optimistic count of
+    daisy-chained VNFs, but the cumulative effect of traffic on the vSwitch is
+    "real" (assuming that the vSwitch has some dedicated resources, and the
+    effects on shared resources is understood).
+
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum Throughput in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT for each frame size with X% packet loss.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       and VNFs (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+.. 3.2.2.3.4
+
+Test ID: LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+     **Title**: VNF Scalability RFC 2544 Throughput and Latency Profile
+
+     **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+     **Priority**:
+
+     **Description**:
+
+     This test reveals how throughput and latency degrades as the number
+     of VNFs increases and offered rate varies in the region of the DUT's
+     maximum forwarding rate as determined by
+     LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss).
+     For example it can be used to determine if the degradation of throughput
+     and latency as the number of VNFs and offered rate increases is slow
+     and graceful, or sudden and severe. The minimum number of VNFs to
+     be tested is 3.
+
+     The selected frame sizes are those previously defined under
+     :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+
+     The offered traffic rate is described as a percentage delta with respect
+     to the DUT's RFC 2544 Throughput as determined by
+     LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLoss Ratio (0% Packet Loss case). A delta
+     of 0% is equivalent to an offered traffic rate equal to the RFC 2544
+     Throughput; A delta of +50% indicates an offered rate half-way
+     between the Throughput and line-rate, whereas a delta of
+     -50% indicates an offered rate of half the maximum rate. Therefore the
+     range of the delta figure is natuarlly bounded at -100% (zero offered
+     traffic) and +100% (traffic offered at line rate).
+
+     The following deltas to the maximum forwarding rate should be applied:
+
+     -  -50%, -10%, 0%, +10% & +50%
+
+    **Note**: Other values can be tested if required by the user.
+
+    **Note**: The same VNF should be used in the "daisy chain" formation.
+    Each addition of a VNF should be conducted in a new test setup (The DUT
+    is brought down, then the DUT is brought up again). An atlernative approach
+    would be to continue to add VNFs without bringing down the DUT. The
+    approach used needs to be documented as part of the test report.
+
+    Flow classification should be conducted with L2, L3 and L4 matching
+    to understand the matching and scaling capability of the vSwitch. The
+    matching fields which were used as part of the test should be reported
+    as part of the benchmark report.
+
+    The SUT (vSwitch and VNF daisy chain) operation should be validated
+    before running the test. This may be completed by running a burst or
+    continuous stream of traffic through the SUT to ensure proper operation
+    before a test.
+
+    **Note**: the traffic rate used to validate SUT operation should be low
+    enough not to stress the SUT
+
+    **Expected Result**: For each packet size a profile should be produced
+    of how throughput and latency vary with offered rate.
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of the DUT
+       for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and for each frame
+       size.
+    -  The average latency for each delta to the maximum forwarding rate and
+       for each frame size.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+    -  Any failures experienced (for example if the vSwitch crashes, stops
+       processing packets, restarts or becomes unresponsive to commands)
+       when the offered load is above Maximum Throughput MUST be recorded
+       and reported with the results.
+
+.. 3.2.2.4
+
+Activation tests
+----------------
+
+The general aim of these tests is to understand the capacity of the
+and speed with which the vswitch can accommodate new flows.
+
+.. 3.2.2.4.1
+
+Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Address Caching Capacity Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: N/A
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    Please note this test is only applicable to virtual switches that are capable of
+    MAC learning. The aim of this test is to determine the address caching
+    capacity of the DUT for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed
+    interval time). The selected frame sizes are those previously defined
+    under :ref:`default-test-parameters`.
+
+    In order to run this test the aging time, that is the maximum time the
+    DUT will keep a learned address in its flow table, and a set of initial
+    addresses, whose value should be >= 1 and <= the max number supported by
+    the implementation must be known. Please note that if the aging time is
+    configurable it must be longer than the time necessary to produce frames
+    from the external source at the specified rate. If the aging time is
+    fixed the frame rate must be brought down to a value that the external
+    source can produce in a time that is less than the aging time.
+
+    Learning Frames should be sent from an external source to the DUT to
+    install a number of flows. The Learning Frames must have a fixed
+    destination address and must vary the source address of the frames. The
+    DUT should install flows in its flow table based on the varying source
+    addresses. Frames should then be transmitted from an external source at
+    a suitable frame rate to see if the DUT has properly learned all of the
+    addresses. If there is no frame loss and no flooding, the number of
+    addresses sent to the DUT should be increased and the test is repeated
+    until the max number of cached addresses supported by the DUT
+    determined.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Number of cached addresses supported by the DUT.
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → 2 x physical (one receiving, one listening).
+
+.. 3.2.2.4.2
+
+Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC2889 Address Learning Rate Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**: LTD.Memory.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    Please note this test is only applicable to virtual switches that are capable of
+    MAC learning. The aim of this test is to determine the rate of address
+    learning of the DUT for a constant load (fixed length frames at a fixed
+    interval time). The selected frame sizes are those previously defined
+    under :ref:`default-test-parameters`, traffic should be
+    sent with each IPv4/IPv6 address incremented by one. The rate at which
+    the DUT learns a new address should be measured. The maximum caching
+    capacity from LTD.Memory.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity should be taken
+    into consideration as the maximum number of addresses for which the
+    learning rate can be obtained.
+
+    **Expected Result**: It may be worthwhile to report the behaviour when
+    operating beyond address capacity - some DUTs may be more friendly to
+    new addresses than others.
+
+    **Metrics collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The address learning rate of the DUT.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → 2 x physical (one receiving, one listening).
+
+.. 3.2.2.5
+
+Coupling between control path and datapath Tests
+------------------------------------------------
+
+The following tests aim to determine how tightly coupled the datapath
+and the control path are within a virtual switch. The following list
+is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that should be
+required. It is expected that more will be added.
+
+.. 3.2.2.5.1
+
+Test ID: LTD.CPDPCouplingFlowAddition
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: Control Path and Datapath Coupling
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**:
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand how exercising the DUT's control
+    path affects datapath performance.
+
+    Initially a certain number of flow table entries are installed in the
+    vSwitch. Then over the duration of an RFC2544 throughput test
+    flow-entries are added and removed at the rates specified below. No
+    traffic is 'hitting' these flow-entries, they are simply added and
+    removed.
+
+    The test MUST be repeated with the following initial number of
+    flow-entries installed: - < 10 - 1000 - 100,000 - 10,000,000 (or the
+    maximum supported number of flow-entries)
+
+    The test MUST be repeated with the following rates of flow-entry
+    addition and deletion per second: - 0 - 1 (i.e. 1 addition plus 1
+    deletion) - 100 - 10,000
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  The maximum forwarding rate in Frames Per Second (FPS) and Mbps of
+       the DUT.
+    -  The average latency of the traffic flow when passing through the DUT
+       (if testing for latency, note that this average is different from the
+       test specified in Section 26.3 of
+       `RFC2544 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__).
+    -  CPU and memory utilization may also be collected as part of this
+       test, to determine the vSwitch's performance footprint on the system.
+
+    **Deployment scenario**:
+
+    -  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+
+.. 3.2.2.6
+
+CPU and memory consumption
+--------------------------
+
+The following tests will profile a virtual switch's CPU and memory
+utilization under various loads and circumstances. The following
+list is not exhaustive but should indicate the type of tests that
+should be required. It is expected that more will be added.
+
+.. 3.2.2.6.1
+
+.. _CPU0PacketLoss:
+
+Test ID: LTD.Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+    **Title**: RFC 2544 0% Loss CPU OR Memory Stress Test
+
+    **Prerequisite Test**:
+
+    **Priority**:
+
+    **Description**:
+
+    The aim of this test is to understand the overall performance of the
+    system when a CPU or Memory intensive application is run on the same DUT as
+    the Virtual Switch. For each frame size, an
+    LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio (0% Packet Loss) test should be
+    performed. Throughout the entire test a CPU or Memory intensive application
+    should be run on all cores on the system not in use by the Virtual Switch.
+    For NUMA system only cores on the same NUMA node are loaded.
+
+    It is recommended that stress-ng be used for loading the non-Virtual
+    Switch cores but any stress tool MAY be used.
+
+    **Expected Result**:
+
+    **Metrics Collected**:
+
+    The following are the metrics collected for this test:
+
+    -  Memory and CPU utilization of the cores running the Virtual Switch.
+    -  The number of identity of the cores allocated to the Virtual Switch.
+    -  The configuration of the stress tool (for example the command line
+       parameters used to start it.)
+
+    **Note:** Stress in the test ID can be replaced with the name of the
+              component being stressed, when reporting the results:
+              LTD.CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss or LTD.Memory.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
+
+.. 3.2.2.7
+
+Summary List of Tests
+---------------------
+
+1. Throughput tests
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRatioFrameModification
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC6201.ResetTime
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
+  - Test ID: LTD.Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+2. Packet Latency tests
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
+  - Test ID: LTD.PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
+
+3. Scalability tests
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.Scalability.Flows.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
+  - Test ID: LTD.MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
+  - LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
+  - LTD.Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
+
+4. Activation tests
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
+  - Test ID: LTD.Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
+
+5. Coupling between control path and datapath Tests
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.CPDPCouplingFlowAddition
+
+6. CPU and memory consumption
+
+  - Test ID: LTD.Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
diff --git a/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2b74d676
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/developer/requirements/vswitchperf_ltp.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1348 @@
+.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
+.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
+.. (c) OPNFV, Intel Corporation, AT&T and others.
+
+.. 3.1
+
+*****************************
+VSPERF LEVEL TEST PLAN (LTP)
+*****************************
+
+===============
+Introduction
+===============
+
+The objective of the OPNFV project titled
+**Characterize vSwitch Performance for Telco NFV Use Cases**, is to
+evaluate the performance of virtual switches to identify its suitability for a
+Telco Network Function Virtualization (NFV) environment. The intention of this
+Level Test Plan (LTP) document is to specify the scope, approach, resources,
+and schedule of the virtual switch performance benchmarking activities in
+OPNFV. The test cases will be identified in a separate document called the
+Level Test Design (LTD) document.
+
+This document is currently in draft form.
+
+.. 3.1.1
+
+
+.. _doc-id:
+
+Document identifier
+=========================
+
+The document id will be used to uniquely identify versions of the LTP. The
+format for the document id will be: OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTP\_REL\_STATUS, where
+by the status is one of: draft, reviewed, corrected or final. The document id
+for this version of the LTP is: OPNFV\_vswitchperf\_LTP\_Colorado\_REVIEWED.
+
+.. 3.1.2
+
+.. _scope:
+
+Scope
+==========
+
+The main purpose of this project is to specify a suite of
+performance tests in order to objectively measure the current packet
+transfer characteristics of a virtual switch in the NFVI. The intent of
+the project is to facilitate the performance testing of any virtual switch.
+Thus, a generic suite of tests shall be developed, with no hard dependencies to
+a single implementation. In addition, the test case suite shall be
+architecture independent.
+
+The test cases developed in this project shall not form part of a
+separate test framework, all of these tests may be inserted into the
+Continuous Integration Test Framework and/or the Platform Functionality
+Test Framework - if a vSwitch becomes a standard component of an OPNFV
+release.
+
+.. 3.1.3
+
+References
+===============
+
+*  `RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2544.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2285.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
+   Devices <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2889.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast
+   Benchmarking <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3918.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 4737 Packet Reordering
+   Metrics <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4737.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability
+   Statement <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__
+*  `RFC 6201 Device Reset
+   Characterization <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6201>`__
+
+.. 3.1.4
+
+Level in the overall sequence
+===============================
+The level of testing conducted by vswitchperf in the overall testing sequence (among
+all the testing projects in OPNFV) is the performance benchmarking of a
+specific component (the vswitch) in the OPNFV platfrom. It's expected that this
+testing will follow on from the functional and integration testing conducted by
+other testing projects in OPNFV, namely Functest and Yardstick.
+
+.. 3.1.5
+
+Test classes and overall test conditions
+=========================================
+A benchmark is defined by the IETF as: A standardized test that serves as a
+basis for performance evaluation and comparison. It's important to note that
+benchmarks are not Functional tests. They do not provide PASS/FAIL criteria,
+and most importantly ARE NOT performed on live networks, or performed with live
+network traffic.
+
+In order to determine the packet transfer characteristics of a virtual switch,
+the benchmarking tests will be broken down into the following categories:
+
+- **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 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__)
+  without traffic loss.
+- **Packet and Frame Delay Tests** to measure average, min and max
+  packet and frame delay for constant loads.
+- **Stream Performance Tests** (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
+  performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through
+  the virtual switch.
+- **Request/Response Performance** Tests (TCP, UDP) the measure the
+  transaction rate through the virtual switch.
+- **Packet Delay Tests** to understand latency distribution for
+  different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
+  outliers.
+- **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.
+- **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.
+- **CPU and Memory Consumption Tests** to understand the virtual
+  switch’s footprint on the system, this includes:
+
+  * CPU core utilization.
+  * CPU cache utilization.
+  * Memory footprint.
+  * System bus (QPI, PCI, ..) utilization.
+  * Memory lanes utilization.
+  * CPU cycles consumed per packet.
+  * Time To Establish Flows Tests.
+
+- **Noisy Neighbour Tests**, to understand the effects of resource
+  sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
+
+**Note:** some of the tests above can be conducted simultaneously where
+the combined results would be insightful, for example Packet/Frame Delay
+and Scalability.
+
+
+
+.. 3.2
+
+.. _details-of-LTP:
+
+===================================
+Details of the Level Test Plan
+===================================
+
+This section describes the following items:
+* Test items and their identifiers (TestItems_)
+* Test Traceability Matrix (TestMatrix_)
+* Features to be tested (FeaturesToBeTested_)
+* Features not to be tested (FeaturesNotToBeTested_)
+* Approach (Approach_)
+* Item pass/fail criteria (PassFailCriteria_)
+* Suspension criteria and resumption requirements (SuspensionResumptionReqs_)
+
+.. 3.2.1
+
+.. _TestItems:
+
+Test items and their identifiers
+==================================
+The test item/application vsperf is trying to test are virtual switches and in
+particular their performance in an nfv environment. vsperf will first try to
+measure the maximum achievable performance by a virtual switch and then it will
+focus in on usecases that are as close to real life deployment scenarios as
+possible.
+
+.. 3.2.2
+
+.. _TestMatrix:
+
+Test Traceability Matrix
+==========================
+vswitchperf leverages the "3x3" matrix (introduced in
+https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-02) to achieve test
+traceability. The matrix was expanded to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics when
+displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). Test case covreage in the
+LTD is tracked using the following catagories:
+
+
++---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
+|               |             |            |               |             |
+|               |   SPEED     |  ACCURACY  |  RELIABILITY  |    SCALE    |
+|               |             |            |               |             |
++---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
+|               |             |            |               |             |
+|  Activation   |      X      |     X      |       X       |      X      |
+|               |             |            |               |             |
++---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
+|               |             |            |               |             |
+|  Operation    |      X      |      X     |       X       |      X      |
+|               |             |            |               |             |
++---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
+|               |             |            |               |             |
+| De-activation |             |            |               |             |
+|               |             |            |               |             |
++---------------+-------------+------------+---------------+-------------+
+
+X = denotes a test catagory that has 1 or more test cases defined.
+
+.. 3.2.3
+
+.. _FeaturesToBeTested:
+
+Features to be tested
+==========================
+
+Characterizing virtual switches (i.e. Device Under Test (DUT) in this document)
+includes measuring the following performance metrics:
+
+- **Throughput** as defined by `RFC1242
+  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242.txt>`__: The maximum rate at which
+  **none** of the offered frames are dropped by the DUT. The maximum frame
+  rate and bit rate that can be transmitted by the DUT without any error
+  should be recorded. Note there is an equivalent bit rate and a specific
+  layer at which the payloads contribute to the bits. Errors and
+  improperly formed frames or packets are dropped.
+- **Packet delay** introduced by the DUT and its cumulative effect on
+  E2E networks. Frame delay can be measured equivalently.
+- **Packet delay variation**: measured from the perspective of the
+  VNF/application. Packet delay variation is sometimes called "jitter".
+  However, we will avoid the term "jitter" as the term holds different
+  meaning to different groups of people. In this document we will
+  simply use the term packet delay variation. The preferred form for this
+  metric is the PDV form of delay variation defined in `RFC5481
+  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__. The most relevant
+  measurement of PDV considers the delay variation of a single user flow,
+  as this will be relevant to the size of end-system buffers to compensate
+  for delay variation. The measurement system's ability to store the
+  delays of individual packets in the flow of interest is a key factor
+  that determines the specific measurement method. At the outset, it is
+  ideal to view the complete PDV distribution. Systems that can capture
+  and store packets and their delays have the freedom to calculate the
+  reference minimum delay and to determine various quantiles of the PDV
+  distribution accurately (in post-measurement processing routines).
+  Systems without storage must apply algorithms to calculate delay and
+  statistical measurements on the fly. For example, a system may store
+  temporary estimates of the mimimum delay and the set of (100) packets
+  with the longest delays during measurement (to calculate a high quantile,
+  and update these sets with new values periodically.
+  In some cases, a limited number of delay histogram bins will be
+  available, and the bin limits will need to be set using results from
+  repeated experiments. See section 8 of `RFC5481
+  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__.
+- **Packet loss** (within a configured waiting time at the receiver): All
+  packets sent to the DUT should be accounted for.
+- **Burst behaviour**: measures the ability of the DUT to buffer packets.
+- **Packet re-ordering**: measures the ability of the device under test to
+  maintain sending order throughout transfer to the destination.
+- **Packet correctness**: packets or Frames must be well-formed, in that
+  they include all required fields, conform to length requirements, pass
+  integrity checks, etc.
+- **Availability and capacity** of the DUT i.e. when the DUT is fully “up”
+  and connected, following measurements should be captured for
+  DUT without any network packet load:
+
+  - Includes average power consumption of the CPUs (in various power states) and
+    system over specified period of time. Time period should not be less
+    than 60 seconds.
+  - Includes average per core CPU utilization over specified period of time.
+    Time period should not be less than 60 seconds.
+  - Includes the number of NIC interfaces supported.
+  - Includes headroom of VM workload processing cores (i.e. available
+    for applications).
+
+.. 3.2.4
+
+.. _FeaturesNotToBeTested:
+
+Features not to be tested
+==========================
+vsperf doesn't intend to define or perform any functional tests. The aim is to
+focus on performance.
+
+.. 3.2.5
+
+.. _Approach:
+
+Approach
+==============
+The testing approach adoped by the vswitchperf project is black box testing,
+meaning the test inputs can be generated and the outputs captured and
+completely evaluated from the outside of the System Under Test. Some metrics
+can be collected on the SUT, such as cpu or memory utilization if the
+collection has no/minimal impact on benchmark.
+This section will look at the deployment scenarios and the general methodology
+used by vswitchperf. In addition, this section will also specify the details of
+the Test Report that must be collected for each of the test cases.
+
+.. 3.2.5.1
+
+Deployment Scenarios
+--------------------------
+The following represents possible deployment test scenarios which can
+help to determine the performance of both the virtual switch and the
+datapaths to physical ports (to NICs) and to logical ports (to VNFs):
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.1
+
+.. _Phy2Phy:
+
+Physical port → vSwitch → physical port
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                            _
+       +--------------------------------------------------+  |
+       |              +--------------------+              |  |
+       |              |                    |              |  |
+       |              |                    v              |  |  Host
+       |   +--------------+            +--------------+   |  |
+       |   |   phy port   |  vSwitch   |   phy port   |   |  |
+       +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ _|
+                  ^                           :
+                  |                           |
+                  :                           v
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+       |                                                  |
+       |                traffic generator                 |
+       |                                                  |
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.2
+
+.. _PVP:
+
+Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                             _
+       +---------------------------------------------------+  |
+       |                                                   |  |
+       |   +-------------------------------------------+   |  |
+       |   |                 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                 |
+       |                                                  |
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.3
+
+.. _PVVP:
+
+Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                       _
+    +----------------------+  +----------------------+  |
+    |   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
+    |       |       L-----------------+       v      |  |
+    |   +--------------+          +--------------+   |  |
+    |   |   phy ports  | vSwitch  |   phy ports  |   |  |
+    +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+ _|
+            ^       ^                 :       :
+            |       |                 |       |
+            :       :                 v       v
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+    |                                                  |
+    |                traffic generator                 |
+    |                                                  |
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.4
+
+Physical port → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → physical port
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                        _
+    +----------------------+  +----------------------+   |
+    |   Guest 1            |  |   Guest 2            |   |
+    |+-------------------+ |  | +-------------------+|   |
+    ||     Application   | |  | |     Application   ||   |
+    |+-------------------+ |  | +-------------------+|   |
+    |       ^       |      |  |       ^       |      |   |  Guests
+    |       |       v      |  |       |       v      |   |
+    |+-------------------+ |  | +-------------------+|   |
+    ||   logical ports   | |  | |   logical ports   ||   |
+    ||  0              1 | |  | | 0              1  ||   |
+    ++--------------------++  ++--------------------++  _|
+        ^              :          ^              :
+    (PCI passthrough)  |          |     (PCI passthrough)
+        |              v          :              |      _
+    +--------++------------+-+------------++---------+   |
+    |   |    ||        0   | |    1       ||     |   |   |
+    |   |    ||logical port| |logical port||     |   |   |
+    |   |    |+------------+ +------------+|     |   |   |
+    |   |    |     |                 ^     |     |   |   |
+    |   |    |     L-----------------+     |     |   |   |
+    |   |    |                             |     |   |   |  Host
+    |   |    |           vSwitch           |     |   |   |
+    |   |    +-----------------------------+     |   |   |
+    |   |                                        |   |   |
+    |   |                                        v   |   |
+    | +--------------+              +--------------+ |   |
+    | | phy port/VF  |              | phy port/VF  | |   |
+    +-+--------------+--------------+--------------+-+  _|
+        ^                                        :
+        |                                        |
+        :                                        v
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+    |                                                  |
+    |                traffic generator                 |
+    |                                                  |
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.5
+
+Physical port → vSwitch → VNF
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                          _
+    +---------------------------------------------------+  |
+    |                                                   |  |
+    |   +-------------------------------------------+   |  |
+    |   |                 Application               |   |  |
+    |   +-------------------------------------------+   |  |
+    |       ^                                           |  |
+    |       |                                           |  |  Guest
+    |       :                                           |  |
+    |   +---------------+                               |  |
+    |   | logical port 0|                               |  |
+    +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ _|
+            ^
+            |
+            :                                            _
+    +---+---------------+------------------------------+  |
+    |   | logical port 0|                              |  |
+    |   +---------------+                              |  |
+    |       ^                                          |  |
+    |       |                                          |  |  Host
+    |       :                                          |  |
+    |   +--------------+                               |  |
+    |   |   phy port   |  vSwitch                      |  |
+    +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ _|
+               ^
+               |
+               :
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+    |                                                  |
+    |                traffic generator                 |
+    |                                                  |
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.6
+
+VNF → vSwitch → physical port
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                          _
+    +---------------------------------------------------+  |
+    |                                                   |  |
+    |   +-------------------------------------------+   |  |
+    |   |                 Application               |   |  |
+    |   +-------------------------------------------+   |  |
+    |                                          :        |  |
+    |                                          |        |  |  Guest
+    |                                          v        |  |
+    |                               +---------------+   |  |
+    |                               | logical port  |   |  |
+    +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ _|
+                                               :
+                                               |
+                                               v         _
+    +------------------------------+---------------+---+  |
+    |                              | logical port  |   |  |
+    |                              +---------------+   |  |
+    |                                          :       |  |
+    |                                          |       |  |  Host
+    |                                          v       |  |
+    |                               +--------------+   |  |
+    |                     vSwitch   |   phy port   |   |  |
+    +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ _|
+                                           :
+                                           |
+                                           v
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+    |                                                  |
+    |                traffic generator                 |
+    |                                                  |
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.7
+
+VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                             _
+    +-------------------------+  +-------------------------+  |
+    |   Guest 1               |  |   Guest 2               |  |
+    |   +-----------------+   |  |   +-----------------+   |  |
+    |   |   Application   |   |  |   |   Application   |   |  |
+    |   +-----------------+   |  |   +-----------------+   |  |
+    |                :        |  |       ^                 |  |
+    |                |        |  |       |                 |  |  Guest
+    |                v        |  |       :                 |  |
+    |     +---------------+   |  |   +---------------+     |  |
+    |     | logical port 0|   |  |   | logical port 0|     |  |
+    +-----+---------------+---+  +---+---------------+-----+ _|
+                    :                    ^
+                    |                    |
+                    v                    :                    _
+    +----+---------------+------------+---------------+-----+  |
+    |    |     port 0    |            |     port 1    |     |  |
+    |    +---------------+            +---------------+     |  |
+    |              :                    ^                   |  |
+    |              |                    |                   |  |  Host
+    |              +--------------------+                   |  |
+    |                                                       |  |
+    |                     vswitch                           |  |
+    +-------------------------------------------------------+ _|
+
+.. 3.2.5.1.8
+
+HOST 1(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → Physical port)
+→ HOST 2(Physical port → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → Physical port)
+
+HOST 1 (PVP) → HOST 2 (PVP)
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+                                                       _
+    +----------------------+  +----------------------+  |
+    |   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 |  |  |
+    |   +---------------+  |  |   +---------------+  |  |
+    |       ^       |      |  |       ^       |      |  |  Hosts
+    |       |       v      |  |       |       v      |  |
+    |   +--------------+   |  |   +--------------+   |  |
+    |   |   phy ports  |   |  |   |   phy ports  |   |  |
+    +---+--------------+---+  +---+--------------+---+ _|
+            ^       :                 :       :
+            |       +-----------------+       |
+            :                                 v
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+    |                                                  |
+    |                traffic generator                 |
+    |                                                  |
+    +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+
+
+**Note:** For tests where the traffic generator and/or measurement
+receiver are implemented on VM and connected to the virtual switch
+through vNIC, the issues of shared resources and interactions between
+the measurement devices and the device under test must be considered.
+
+**Note:** Some RFC 2889 tests require a full-mesh sending and receiving
+pattern involving more than two ports. This possibility is illustrated in the
+Physical port → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → VNF → vSwitch → physical port
+diagram above (with 2 sending and 2 receiving ports, though all ports
+could be used bi-directionally).
+
+**Note:** When Deployment Scenarios are used in RFC 2889 address learning
+or cache capacity testing, an additional port from the vSwitch must be
+connected to the test device. This port is used to listen for flooded
+frames.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2
+
+General Methodology:
+--------------------------
+To establish the baseline performance of the virtual switch, tests would
+initially be run with a simple workload in the VNF (the recommended
+simple workload VNF would be `DPDK <http://www.dpdk.org/>`__'s testpmd
+application forwarding packets in a VM or vloop\_vnf a simple kernel
+module that forwards traffic between two network interfaces inside the
+virtualized environment while bypassing the networking stack).
+Subsequently, the tests would also be executed with a real Telco
+workload running in the VNF, which would exercise the virtual switch in
+the context of higher level Telco NFV use cases, and prove that its
+underlying characteristics and behaviour can be measured and validated.
+Suitable real Telco workload VNFs are yet to be identified.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.1
+
+.. _default-test-parameters:
+
+Default Test Parameters
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The following list identifies the default parameters for suite of
+tests:
+
+-  Reference application: Simple forwarding or Open Source VNF.
+-  Frame size (bytes): 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518, 2K, 4k OR
+   Packet size based on use-case (e.g. RTP 64B, 256B) OR Mix of packet sizes as
+   maintained by the Functest project <https://wiki.opnfv.org/traffic_profile_management>.
+-  Reordering check: Tests should confirm that packets within a flow are
+   not reordered.
+-  Duplex: Unidirectional / Bidirectional. Default: Full duplex with
+   traffic transmitting in both directions, as network traffic generally
+   does not flow in a single direction. By default the data rate of
+   transmitted traffic should be the same in both directions, please
+   note that asymmetric traffic (e.g. downlink-heavy) tests will be
+   mentioned explicitly for the relevant test cases.
+-  Number of Flows: Default for non scalability tests is a single flow.
+   For scalability tests the goal is to test with maximum supported
+   flows but where possible will test up to 10 Million flows. Start with
+   a single flow and scale up. By default flows should be added
+   sequentially, tests that add flows simultaneously will explicitly
+   call out their flow addition behaviour. Packets are generated across
+   the flows uniformly with no burstiness. For multi-core tests should
+   consider the number of packet flows based on vSwitch/VNF multi-thread
+   implementation and behavior.
+
+-  Traffic Types: UDP, SCTP, RTP, GTP and UDP traffic.
+-  Deployment scenarios are:
+-  Physical → virtual switch → physical.
+-  Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → physical.
+-  Physical → virtual switch → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → virtual
+   switch → physical.
+-  Physical → VNF → virtual switch → VNF → physical.
+-  Physical → virtual switch → VNF.
+-  VNF → virtual switch → Physical.
+-  VNF → virtual switch → VNF.
+
+Tests MUST have these parameters unless otherwise stated. **Test cases
+with non default parameters will be stated explicitly**.
+
+**Note**: For throughput tests unless stated otherwise, test
+configurations should ensure that traffic traverses the installed flows
+through the virtual switch, i.e. flows are installed and have an appropriate
+time out that doesn't expire before packet transmission starts.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.2
+
+Flow Classification
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Virtual switches classify packets into flows by processing and matching
+particular header fields in the packet/frame and/or the input port where
+the packets/frames arrived. The vSwitch then carries out an action on
+the group of packets that match the classification parameters. Thus a
+flow is considered to be a sequence of packets that have a shared set of
+header field values or have arrived on the same port and have the same
+action applied to them. Performance results can vary based on the
+parameters the vSwitch uses to match for a flow. The recommended flow
+classification parameters for L3 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
+time-out time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance tests that
+do not measure the flow set-up time. Normally the first packet of a
+particular flow will install the flow in the vSwitch 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.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.3
+
+Test Priority
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Tests will be assigned a priority in order to determine which tests
+should be implemented immediately and which tests implementations
+can be deferred.
+
+Priority can be of following types: - Urgent: Must be implemented
+immediately. - High: Must be implemented in the next release. - Medium:
+May be implemented after the release. - Low: May or may not be
+implemented at all.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.4
+
+SUT Setup
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The SUT should be configured to its "default" state. The
+SUT's configuration or set-up must not change between tests in any way
+other than what is required to do the test. All supported protocols must
+be configured and enabled for each test set up.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.5
+
+Port Configuration
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The DUT should be configured with n ports where
+n is a multiple of 2. Half of the ports on the DUT should be used as
+ingress ports and the other half of the ports on the DUT should be used
+as egress ports. Where a DUT has more than 2 ports, the ingress data
+streams should be set-up so that they transmit packets to the egress
+ports in sequence so that there is an even distribution of traffic
+across ports. For example, if a DUT has 4 ports 0(ingress), 1(ingress),
+2(egress) and 3(egress), the traffic stream directed at port 0 should
+output a packet to port 2 followed by a packet to port 3. The traffic
+stream directed at port 1 should also output a packet to port 2 followed
+by a packet to port 3.
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.6
+
+Frame Formats
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+**Frame formats Layer 2 (data link layer) protocols**
+
+-  Ethernet II
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+     +---------------------------+-----------+
+     | Ethernet Header | Payload | Check Sum |
+     +-----------------+---------+-----------+
+     |_________________|_________|___________|
+           14 Bytes     46 - 1500   4 Bytes
+                          Bytes
+
+
+**Layer 3 (network layer) protocols**
+
+-  IPv4
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+     +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
+     | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Checksum  |
+     +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
+     |_________________|___________|_________|___________|
+           14 Bytes       20 bytes  26 - 1480   4 Bytes
+                                      Bytes
+
+-  IPv6
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+     +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
+     | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Payload | Checksum  |
+     +-----------------+-----------+---------+-----------+
+     |_________________|___________|_________|___________|
+           14 Bytes       40 bytes  26 - 1460   4 Bytes
+                                      Bytes
+
+**Layer 4 (transport layer) protocols**
+
+  - TCP
+  - UDP
+  - SCTP
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+     +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
+     | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header  | Payload | Checksum  |
+     +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
+     |_________________|___________|_________________|_________|___________|
+           14 Bytes      40 bytes      20 Bytes       6 - 1460   4 Bytes
+                                                       Bytes
+
+
+**Layer 5 (application layer) protocols**
+
+  - RTP
+  - GTP
+
+.. code-block:: console
+
+     +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
+     | Ethernet Header | IP Header | Layer 4 Header  | Payload | Checksum  |
+     +-----------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+-----------+
+     |_________________|___________|_________________|_________|___________|
+           14 Bytes      20 bytes     20 Bytes        >= 6 Bytes   4 Bytes
+
+.. 3.2.5.2.7
+
+Packet Throughput
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+There is a difference between an Ethernet frame,
+an IP packet, and a UDP datagram. In the seven-layer OSI model of
+computer networking, packet refers to a data unit at layer 3 (network
+layer). The correct term for a data unit at layer 2 (data link layer) is
+a frame, and at layer 4 (transport layer) is a segment or datagram.
+
+Important concepts related to 10GbE performance are frame rate and
+throughput. The MAC bit rate of 10GbE, defined in the IEEE standard 802
+.3ae, is 10 billion bits per second. Frame rate is based on the bit rate
+and frame format definitions. Throughput, defined in IETF RFC 1242, is
+the highest rate at which the system under test can forward the offered
+load, without loss.
+
+The frame rate for 10GbE is determined by a formula that divides the 10
+billion bits per second by the preamble + frame length + inter-frame
+gap.
+
+The maximum frame rate is calculated using the minimum values of the
+following parameters, as described in the IEEE 802 .3ae standard:
+
+-  Preamble: 8 bytes \* 8 = 64 bits
+-  Frame Length: 64 bytes (minimum) \* 8 = 512 bits
+-  Inter-frame Gap: 12 bytes (minimum) \* 8 = 96 bits
+
+Therefore, Maximum Frame Rate (64B Frames)
+= MAC Transmit Bit Rate / (Preamble + Frame Length + Inter-frame Gap)
+= 10,000,000,000 / (64 + 512 + 96)
+= 10,000,000,000 / 672
+= 14,880,952.38 frame per second (fps)
+
+.. 3.2.5.3
+
+RFCs for testing virtual switch performance
+--------------------------------------------------
+
+The starting point for defining the suite of tests for benchmarking the
+performance of a virtual switch is to take existing RFCs and standards
+that were designed to test their physical counterparts and adapting them
+for testing virtual switches. The rationale behind this is to establish
+a fair comparison between the performance of virtual and physical
+switches. This section outlines the RFCs that are used by this
+specification.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.1
+
+RFC 1242 Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnection
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Devices RFC 1242 defines the terminology that is used in describing
+performance benchmarking tests and their results. Definitions and
+discussions covered include: Back-to-back, bridge, bridge/router,
+constant load, data link frame size, frame loss rate, inter frame gap,
+latency, and many more.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.2
+
+RFC 2544 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 2544 outlines a benchmarking methodology for network Interconnect
+Devices. The methodology results in performance metrics such as latency,
+frame loss percentage, and maximum data throughput.
+
+In this document network “throughput” (measured in millions of frames
+per second) is based on RFC 2544, unless otherwise noted. Frame size
+refers to Ethernet frames ranging from smallest frames of 64 bytes to
+largest frames of 9K bytes.
+
+Types of tests are:
+
+1. Throughput test defines the maximum number of frames per second
+   that can be transmitted without any error, or 0% loss ratio.
+   In some Throughput tests (and those tests with long duration),
+   evaluation of an additional frame loss ratio is suggested. The
+   current ratio (10^-7 %) is based on understanding the typical
+   user-to-user packet loss ratio needed for good application
+   performance and recognizing that a single transfer through a
+   vswitch must contribute a tiny fraction of user-to-user loss.
+   Further, the ratio 10^-7 % also recognizes practical limitations
+   when measuring loss ratio.
+
+2. Latency test measures the time required for a frame to travel from
+   the originating device through the network to the destination device.
+   Please note that RFC2544 Latency measurement will be superseded with
+   a measurement of average latency over all successfully transferred
+   packets or frames.
+
+3. Frame loss test measures the network’s
+   response in overload conditions - a critical indicator of the
+   network’s ability to support real-time applications in which a
+   large amount of frame loss will rapidly degrade service quality.
+
+4. Burst test assesses the buffering capability of a virtual switch. It
+   measures the maximum number of frames received at full line rate
+   before a frame is lost. In carrier Ethernet networks, this
+   measurement validates the excess information rate (EIR) as defined in
+   many SLAs.
+
+5. System recovery to characterize speed of recovery from an overload
+   condition.
+
+6. Reset to characterize speed of recovery from device or software
+   reset. This type of test has been updated by `RFC6201
+   <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6201.txt>`__ as such,
+   the methodology defined by this specification will be that of RFC 6201.
+
+Although not included in the defined RFC 2544 standard, another crucial
+measurement in Ethernet networking is packet delay variation. The
+definition set out by this specification comes from
+`RFC5481 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5481.txt>`__.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.3
+
+RFC 2285 Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 2285 defines the terminology that is used to describe the
+terminology for benchmarking a LAN switching device. It extends RFC
+1242 and defines: DUTs, SUTs, Traffic orientation and distribution,
+bursts, loads, forwarding rates, etc.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.4
+
+RFC 2889 Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 2889 outlines a benchmarking methodology for LAN switching, it
+extends RFC 2544. The outlined methodology gathers performance
+metrics for forwarding, congestion control, latency, address handling
+and finally filtering.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.5
+
+RFC 3918 Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 3918 outlines a methodology for IP Multicast benchmarking.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.6
+
+RFC 4737 Packet Reordering Metrics
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 4737 describes metrics for identifying and counting re-ordered
+packets within a stream, and metrics to measure the extent each
+packet has been re-ordered.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.7
+
+RFC 5481 Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 5481 defined two common, but different forms of delay variation
+metrics, and compares the metrics over a range of networking
+circumstances and tasks. The most suitable form for vSwitch
+benchmarking is the "PDV" form.
+
+.. 3.2.5.3.8
+
+RFC 6201 Device Reset Characterization
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+RFC 6201 extends the methodology for characterizing the speed of
+recovery of the DUT from device or software reset described in RFC
+2544.
+
+.. 3.2.6:
+
+.. _PassFailCriteria:
+
+Item pass/fail criteria
+=========================
+
+vswitchperf does not specify Pass/Fail criteria for the tests in terms of a
+threshold, as benchmarks do not (and should not do this). The results/metrics
+for a test are simply reported. If it had to be defined, a test is considered
+to have passed if it succesfully completed and a relavent metric was
+recorded/reported for the SUT.
+
+.. 3.2.7:
+
+.. _SuspensionResumptionReqs:
+
+Suspension criteria and resumption requirements
+================================================
+In the case of a throughput test, a test should be suspended if a virtual
+switch is failing to forward any traffic. A test should be restarted from a
+clean state if the intention is to carry out the test again.
+
+.. 3.2.8:
+
+.. _TestDelierables:
+
+Test deliverables
+==================
+Each test should produce a test report that details SUT information as well as
+the test results. There are a number of parameters related to the system, DUT
+and tests that can affect the repeatability of a test results and should be
+recorded. In order to minimise the variation in the results of a test,
+it is recommended that the test report includes the following information:
+
+-  Hardware details including:
+
+   -  Platform details.
+   -  Processor details.
+   -  Memory information (see below)
+   -  Number of enabled cores.
+   -  Number of cores used for the test.
+   -  Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer,
+      versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into).
+   -  NIC interrupt configuration.
+   -  BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
+      modified.
+
+-  Software details including:
+
+   -  OS version (for host and VNF)
+   -  Kernel version (for host and VNF)
+   -  GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF).
+   -  Hypervisor details (Type and version).
+   -  Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used.
+   -  vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised.
+   -  Memory allocation to the vSwitch – which NUMA node it is using,
+      and how many memory channels.
+   -  Where the vswitch is built from source: compiler details including
+      versions and the flags that were used to compile the vSwitch.
+   -  DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used.
+   -  Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere.
+   -  VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent
+      non-persistent.
+   -  Number of VMs.
+   -  Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver.
+   -  Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host.
+   -  Number vNIC interrupt configuration.
+   -  Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch
+      itself) on the host.
+   -  Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for
+      Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
+      (taskset).
+
+-  Memory Details
+
+   -  Total memory
+   -  Type of memory
+   -  Used memory
+   -  Active memory
+   -  Inactive memory
+   -  Free memory
+   -  Buffer memory
+   -  Swap cache
+   -  Total swap
+   -  Used swap
+   -  Free swap
+
+-  Test duration.
+-  Number of flows.
+-  Traffic Information:
+
+   -  Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other.
+   -  Packet Sizes.
+
+-  Deployment Scenario.
+
+**Note**: Tests that require additional parameters to be recorded will
+explicitly specify this.
+
+
+.. 3.3:
+
+.. _TestManagement:
+
+Test management
+=================
+This section will detail the test activities that will be conducted by vsperf
+as well as the infrastructure that will be used to complete the tests in OPNFV.
+
+.. 3.3.1:
+
+Planned activities and tasks; test progression
+=================================================
+A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying to
+ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results between runs.
+When benchmarking the performance of a virtual switch there are many
+factors that can affect the consistency of results. This section
+describes these factors and the measures that can be taken to limit
+their effects. In addition, this section will outline some system tests
+to validate the platform and the VNF before conducting any vSwitch
+benchmarking tests.
+
+**System Isolation:**
+
+When conducting a benchmarking test on any SUT, it is essential to limit
+(and if reasonable, eliminate) any noise that may interfere with the
+accuracy of the metrics collected by the test. This noise may be
+introduced by other hardware or software (OS, other applications), and
+can result in significantly varying performance metrics being collected
+between consecutive runs of the same test. In the case of characterizing
+the performance of a virtual switch, there are a number of configuration
+parameters that can help increase the repeatability and stability of
+test results, including:
+
+-  OS/GRUB configuration:
+
+   -  maxcpus = n where n >= 0; limits the kernel to using 'n'
+      processors. Only use exactly what you need.
+   -  isolcpus: Isolate CPUs from the general scheduler. Isolate all
+      CPUs bar one which will be used by the OS.
+   -  use taskset to affinitize the forwarding application and the VNFs
+      onto isolated cores. VNFs and the vSwitch should be allocated
+      their own cores, i.e. must not share the same cores. vCPUs for the
+      VNF should be affinitized to individual cores also.
+   -  Limit the amount of background applications that are running and
+      set OS to boot to runlevel 3. Make sure to kill any unnecessary
+      system processes/daemons.
+   -  Only enable hardware that you need to use for your test – to
+      ensure there are no other interrupts on the system.
+   -  Configure NIC interrupts to only use the cores that are not
+      allocated to any other process (VNF/vSwitch).
+
+-  NUMA configuration: Any unused sockets in a multi-socket system
+   should be disabled.
+-  CPU pinning: The vSwitch and the VNF should each be affinitized to
+   separate logical cores using a combination of maxcpus, isolcpus and
+   taskset.
+-  BIOS configuration: BIOS should be configured for performance where
+   an explicit option exists, sleep states should be disabled, any
+   virtualization optimization technologies should be enabled, and
+   hyperthreading should also be enabled, turbo boost and overclocking
+   should be disabled.
+
+**System Validation:**
+
+System validation is broken down into two sub-categories: Platform
+validation and VNF validation. The validation test itself involves
+verifying the forwarding capability and stability for the sub-system
+under test. The rationale behind system validation is two fold. Firstly
+to give a tester confidence in the stability of the platform or VNF that
+is being tested; and secondly to provide base performance comparison
+points to understand the overhead introduced by the virtual switch.
+
+* Benchmark platform forwarding capability: This is an OPTIONAL test
+  used to verify the platform and measure the base performance (maximum
+  forwarding rate in fps and latency) that can be achieved by the
+  platform without a vSwitch or a VNF. The following diagram outlines
+  the set-up for benchmarking Platform forwarding capability:
+
+  .. code-block:: console
+
+                                                            __
+       +--------------------------------------------------+   |
+       |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
+       |   |                                          |   |   |
+       |   |          l2fw or DPDK L2FWD app          |   |  Host
+       |   |                                          |   |   |
+       |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
+       |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
+       +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
+                  ^                           :
+                  |                           |
+                  :                           v
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+       |                                                  |
+       |                traffic generator                 |
+       |                                                  |
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+* Benchmark VNF forwarding capability: This test is used to verify
+  the VNF and measure the base performance (maximum forwarding rate in
+  fps and latency) that can be achieved by the VNF without a vSwitch.
+  The performance metrics collected by this test will serve as a key
+  comparison point for NIC passthrough technologies and vSwitches. VNF
+  in this context refers to the hypervisor and the VM. The following
+  diagram outlines the set-up for benchmarking VNF forwarding
+  capability:
+
+  .. code-block:: console
+
+                                                            __
+       +--------------------------------------------------+   |
+       |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
+       |   |                                          |   |   |
+       |   |                 VNF                      |   |   |
+       |   |                                          |   |   |
+       |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
+       |   |          Passthrough/SR-IOV              |   |  Host
+       |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
+       |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
+       +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
+                  ^                           :
+                  |                           |
+                  :                           v
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+       |                                                  |
+       |                traffic generator                 |
+       |                                                  |
+       +--------------------------------------------------+
+
+
+**Methodology to benchmark Platform/VNF forwarding capability**
+
+
+The recommended methodology for the platform/VNF validation and
+benchmark is: - Run `RFC2889 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2289.txt>`__
+Maximum Forwarding Rate test, this test will produce maximum
+forwarding rate and latency results that will serve as the
+expected values. These expected values can be used in
+subsequent steps or compared with in subsequent validation tests. -
+Transmit bidirectional traffic at line rate/max forwarding rate
+(whichever is higher) for at least 72 hours, measure throughput (fps)
+and latency. - Note: Traffic should be bidirectional. - Establish a
+baseline forwarding rate for what the platform can achieve. - Additional
+validation: After the test has completed for 72 hours run bidirectional
+traffic at the maximum forwarding rate once more to see if the system is
+still functional and measure throughput (fps) and latency. Compare the
+measure the new obtained values with the expected values.
+
+**NOTE 1**: How the Platform is configured for its forwarding capability
+test (BIOS settings, GRUB configuration, runlevel...) is how the
+platform should be configured for every test after this
+
+**NOTE 2**: How the VNF is configured for its forwarding capability test
+(# of vCPUs, vNICs, Memory, affinitization…) is how it should be
+configured for every test that uses a VNF after this.
+
+**Methodology to benchmark the VNF to vSwitch to VNF deployment scenario**
+
+vsperf has identified the following concerns when benchmarking the VNF to
+vSwitch to VNF deployment scenario:
+
+* The accuracy of the timing synchronization between VNFs/VMs.
+* The clock accuracy of a VNF/VM if they were to be used as traffic generators.
+* VNF traffic generator/receiver may be using resources of the system under
+  test, causing at least three forms of workload to increase as the traffic
+  load increases (generation, switching, receiving).
+
+The recommendation from vsperf is that tests for this sceanario must
+include an external HW traffic generator to act as the tester/traffic transmitter
+and receiver. The perscribed methodology to benchmark this deployment scanrio with
+an external tester involves the following three steps:
+
+#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency through the virtual interface
+connected to the VNF/VM.
+
+.. Figure:: vm2vm_virtual_interface_benchmark.png
+
+   Virtual interfaces performance benchmark
+
+#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency through the VNF/hypervisor.
+
+.. Figure:: vm2vm_hypervisor_benchmark.png
+
+   Hypervisor performance benchmark
+
+#. Determine the forwarding capability and latency for the VNF to vSwitch to VNF
+   taking the information from the previous two steps into account.
+
+.. Figure:: vm2vm_benchmark.png
+
+   VNF to vSwitch to VNF performance benchmark
+
+vsperf also identified an alternative configuration for the final step:
+
+.. Figure:: vm2vm_alternative_benchmark.png
+
+   VNF to vSwitch to VNF alternative performance benchmark
+
+.. 3.3.2:
+
+Environment/infrastructure
+============================
+Intel is providing a hosted test-bed with nine bare-metal environments
+allocated to different OPNFV projects. Currently a number of servers in
+`Intel POD 3 <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/pharos/Intel+Pod3>`__ are
+allocated to vsperf:
+
+  * pod3-wcp-node3 and pod3-wcp-node4 which are used for CI jobs.
+  * pod3-node6 which is used as a vsperf sandbox environment.
+
+vsperf CI
+---------
+vsperf CI jobs are broken down into:
+
+  * Daily job:
+
+    * Runs everyday takes about 10 hours to complete.
+    * TESTCASES_DAILY='phy2phy_tput back2back phy2phy_tput_mod_vlan
+      phy2phy_scalability pvp_tput pvp_back2back pvvp_tput pvvp_back2back'.
+    * TESTPARAM_DAILY='--test-params TRAFFICGEN_PKT_SIZES=(64,128,512,1024,1518)'.
+
+  * Merge job:
+
+    * Runs whenever patches are merged to master.
+    * Runs a basic Sanity test.
+
+  * Verify job:
+
+    * Runs every time a patch is pushed to gerrit.
+    * Builds documentation.
+
+Scripts:
+--------
+There are 2 scripts that are part of VSPERFs CI:
+
+  * build-vsperf.sh: Lives in the VSPERF repository in the ci/ directory and is
+    used to run vsperf with the appropriate cli parameters.
+  * vswitchperf.yml: YAML description of our jenkins job. lives in the RELENG
+    repository.
+
+More info on vsperf CI can be found here:
+https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/VSPERF+CI
+
+.. 3.3.3:
+
+Responsibilities and authority
+===============================
+The group responsible for managing, designing, preparing and executing the
+tests listed in the LTD are the vsperf committers and contributors. The vsperf
+committers and contributors should work with the relavent OPNFV projects to
+ensure that the infrastructure is in place for testing vswitches, and that the
+results are published to common end point (a results database).
+