diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt | 1232 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1232 deletions
diff --git a/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt b/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 7fb0562b..00000000 --- a/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1232 +0,0 @@ - - - - -Network Working Group M. Tahhan -Internet-Draft B. O'Mahony -Intended status: Informational Intel -Expires: January 9, 2017 A. Morton - AT&T Labs - July 8, 2016 - - - Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV - draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00 - -Abstract - - This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) - project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project - intends to build on the current and completed work of the - Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing - existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has - traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated - physical implementations of internetworking functions. Therefore, - this memo begins to describe the additional considerations when - virtual switches are implemented in general-purpose hardware. The - expanded tests and benchmarks are also influenced by the OPNFV - mission to support virtualization of the "telco" infrastructure. - -Requirements Language - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. - -Status of This Memo - - This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the - provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute - working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- - Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. - - Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months - and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any - time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference - material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017. - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -Copyright Notice - - 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. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 4 - 3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 4 - 3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3.4. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 7 - 4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.2. Accuracy of Activation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -1. Introduction - - Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally - conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical - implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box - Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have - served our industry for many years. Now, Network Function - Virtualization (NFV) has the goal to transform how internetwork - functions are implemented, and therefore has garnered much attention. - - This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV - (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization, - "VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release [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 [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]) and - foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong. - - See https://wiki.opnfv.org/ - characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases for more - background, and the OPNFV website for general information: - https://www.opnfv.org/ - - The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open - source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on - existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud-computing. There are - many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on - performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for - and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example. - - Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many - new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. 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 - [I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance], and useful discussion - with the authors. - -2. Scope - - 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 - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - 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). - -3. Benchmarking Considerations - - This section highlights some specific considerations (from - [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net])related to Benchmarks for virtual - switches. The OPNFV project is sharing its present view on these - areas, as they develop their specifications in the Level Test Design - (LTD) document. - -3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions - - To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations - with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed. - BMWG has developed specifications for many network functions this - memo re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them - during development of new methods. A key configuration aspect is the - number of parallel cores required to achieve comparable performance - with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was - reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level. - - It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application - running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory - footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of - internetworking functions. - -3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks - - External observations remain essential as the basis for Benchmarks. - Internal observations with fixed specification and interpretation - will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations - procedures when the technology is deployed. - -3.3. New Configuration Parameters - - A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying - to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When - benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch there are many factors that - can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the - various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists - some of the many new parameters which this project believes are - critical to report in order to achieve repeatability. - - Hardware details including: - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - o Platform details - - o Processor details - - o Memory information (type and size) - - o Number of enabled cores - - o Number of cores used for the test - - o Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, - versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into) - - o NIC interrupt configuration - - o BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were - modified - - o CPU microcode level - - o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the - same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations - - o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...) - - o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor - package, OS...) - - Software details including: - - o OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the - console on one system) - - o OS version (for host and VNF) - - o Kernel version (for host and VNF) - - o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF) - - o Hypervisor details (Type and version) - - o Selected vSwitch, version number or commit id used - - o vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterised - - o Memory allocation to the vSwitch - - o which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - o DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used - - o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/elsewhere - - o VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non- - persistent - - o Number of VMs - - o Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver - - o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host - - o Number vNIC interrupt configuration - - o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch - itself) on the host - - o Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/ - Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes - (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows. - - Test Traffic Information: - - o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, IMIX / Other - - o Packet Sizes - - o Deployment Scenario - -3.4. Flow classification - - Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching - particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets - based on the input ports. Thus a flow can be thought of a sequence - of packets that have the same set of header field values (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. - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation - - This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated - resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this - time. - - 1. Baselines: - - * Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a - vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of - platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance - for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and - latency). - - Benchmark platform forwarding capability - - __ - +--------------------------------------------------+ | - | +------------------------------------------+ | | - | | | | | - | | Simple Forwarding App | | Host - | | | | | - | +------------------------------------------+ | | - | | NIC | | | - +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - * Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity - (vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves - as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base - performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding - rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will - serve as a key comparison point for vSwitch bypass - technologies performance and vSwitch performance. - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - Benchmark VNF forwarding capability - - __ - +--------------------------------------------------+ | - | +------------------------------------------+ | | - | | | | | - | | VNF | | | - | | | | | - | +------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host - | +------------------------------------------+ | | - | | NIC | | | - +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other - resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vSw and VM are SUT - - * Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some - resources unused - - * Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied - - 2. Next Steps - - * Limited sharing - - * Production scenarios - - * Stressful scenarios - -4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary - - The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level - Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance - tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the pre- - existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of - physical switches. These specifications include: - - o [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect - Devices - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - o [RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching - - o [RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization - - o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement - - Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for - the first time, and represent a development challenge for test - equipment developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing - system community have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an - open source test system. - - In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by: - - o [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices - - o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement - - Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include: - - o [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking - - o [RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics - - As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking - characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the - switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the - specification. - - When considering characteristics important to "telco" network - functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. - In this case, the project specifications have referenced metrics from - the IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that - the [RFC2544] test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric - derived from IPPM's [RFC2679], where a set of statistical summaries - will be provided (mean, max, min, etc.). Further metrics planned to - be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined by [RFC5481] - , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT capacity and - packet loss in long term testing at Throughput level, where some low- - level of background loss may be present and characterized. - - Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below: - - o Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in frames - per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load (as - defined by [RFC1242]) without traffic loss. - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - o Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min - and max packet and frame delay for constant loads. - - o Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for - different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover - outliers. - - o Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs as - the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding - logic's configuration... it has to deal with increases. - - o Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer - performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data - through the switch. - - o Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how - closely coupled the datapath and the control path are as well as - the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT - (example: delay of the initial packet of a flow). - - o CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual - switch's footprint on the system, usually conducted as auxiliary - measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU - utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint. - - o 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 [RFC2889] Frame - Rate metrics instead of [RFC2544] Throughput (which requires - stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit internal - queues). - - Future/planned test specs include: - - o Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the - transaction rate through the switch. - - o Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource - sharing on the performance of a virtual switch. - - o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003 - requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration - technologies applied to vswitches. - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - 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: - - Physical port to virtual switch to physical port - - __ - +--------------------------------------------------+ | - | +--------------------+ | | - | | | | | - | | v | | Host - | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | - | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | - +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to physical - port - - __ - +---------------------------------------------------+ | - | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Application | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | ^ : | | - | | | | | Guest - | : v | | - | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | - | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | | - +---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __| - ^ : - | | - : v __ - +---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ | - | | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | | - | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | - | ^ : | | - | | | | | Host - | : v | | - | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | - | | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | | - +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to VNF to - virtual switch to physical port - - __ - +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | - | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | | Application | | | | Application | | | - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | ^ | | | ^ | | | - | | v | | | v | | Guests - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | - | | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | | - +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| - ^ : ^ : - | | | | - : v : v _ - +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | - | | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | | - | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | - | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | - | ^ | ^ | | | Host - | | |-----------------| v | | - | +--------------+ +--------------+ | | - | | phy ports | vSwitch | phy ports | | | - +---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_| - ^ : - | | - : v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - Physical port to virtual switch to VNF - - __ - +---------------------------------------------------+ | - | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Application | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | ^ | | - | | | | Guest - | : | | - | +---------------+ | | - | | logical port 0| | | - +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __| - ^ - | - : __ - +---+---------------+------------------------------+ | - | | logical port 0| | | - | +---------------+ | | - | ^ | | - | | | | Host - | : | | - | +--------------+ | | - | | phy port | vSwitch | | - +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __| - ^ - | - : - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - VNF to virtual switch to physical port - - __ - +---------------------------------------------------+ | - | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | | Application | | | - | +-------------------------------------------+ | | - | : | | - | | | | Guest - | v | | - | +---------------+ | | - | | logical port | | | - +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __| - : - | - v __ - +------------------------------+---------------+---+ | - | | logical port | | | - | +---------------+ | | - | : | | - | | | | Host - | v | | - | +--------------+ | | - | vSwitch | phy port | | | - +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __| - : - | - v - +--------------------------------------------------+ - | | - | traffic generator | - | | - +--------------------------------------------------+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - VNF to virtual switch to VNF - - __ - +----------------------+ +----------------------+ | - | Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | | - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | | Application | | | | Application | | | - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | | | | ^ | | - | v | | | | | Guests - | +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | | - | | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | | - | | 0 | | | | 0 | | | - +---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__| - : ^ - | | - v : _ - +---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ | - | | 1 | | 1 | | | - | | logical ports | | logical ports | | | - | +---------------+ +---------------+ | | - | | ^ | | Host - | L-----------------+ | | - | | | - | vSwitch | | - +------------------------------------------------+_| - - A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test - Methodology Wiki page [TestTopo]. - -5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage - - This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the - "3x3" matrix (introduced in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]). Because - the LTD specification ID names are quite long, this section is - organized into lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all - are occupied, also the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale - metrics when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). - The current version of the LTD specification is available [LTD]. - - The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data - plane, rather than the control plane. - - A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the - VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page [LTDoverV]. - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -5.1. Speed of Activation - - o Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate - - o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency - -5.2. Accuracy of Activation section - - o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition - -5.3. Reliability of Activation - - o Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime - - o Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime - -5.4. Scale of Activation - - o Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity - -5.5. Speed of Operation - - o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate - - o CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss - - o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification - - o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames - - o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate - - o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure - - o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding - -5.6. Accuracy of Operation - - o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering - - o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile - -5.7. Reliability of Operation - - o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak - - o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak - -5.8. Scalability of Operation - - o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss - - o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability - -5.9. Summary - -|------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| | | | | | -| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE | -| | | | | | -|------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| | | | | | -| Activation | X | X | X | X | -| | | | | | -|------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| | | | | | -| Operation | X | X | X | X | -| | | | | | -|------------------------------------------------------------------------| -| | | | | | -| De-activation | | | | | -| | | | | | -|------------------------------------------------------------------------| - -6. Security Considerations - - Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to - technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test - (DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with - dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections - above. - - The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup - and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test - traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test - management network. - - Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying - solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. - - Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for - benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising - from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production - networks. - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -7. IANA Considerations - - No IANA Action is requested at this time. - -8. Acknowledgements - - The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner, - Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik, - Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews. - -9. References - -9.1. Normative References - - [NFV.PER001] - "Network Function Virtualization: Performance and - Portability Best Practices", Group Specification ETSI GS - NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06), June 2014. - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. - - [RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN - Switching Devices", RFC 2285, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285, - February 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>. - - [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, - "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. - - [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for - Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>. - - [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way - Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, - September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. - - [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way - Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>. - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip - Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681, - September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>. - - [RFC2889] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology - for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>. - - [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation - Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>. - - [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network - performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>. - - [RFC3918] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast - Benchmarking", RFC 3918, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October - 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918>. - - [RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, - "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic - Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689, - October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>. - - [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, - S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>. - - [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. - Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", - RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. - - [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, - "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms - Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. - - [RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera, - "Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>. - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - -9.2. Informative References - - [BrahRel] "Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release https://www.opnfv.org/ - brahmaputra". - - [I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance] - Huang, L., Rong, G., Mandeville, B., and B. Hickman, - "Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization Network - Performance", draft-huang-bmwg-virtual-network- - performance-01 (work in progress), April 2015. - - [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net] - Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual - Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf- - bmwg-virtual-net-03 (work in progress), June 2016. - - [IFA003] "https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/ - IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/". - - [LTD] "LTD Test Specification - http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/ - index.html". - - [LTDoverV] - "LTD Test Spec Overview https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/ - vswitchperf_test_spec_review". - - [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network - Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, - July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>. - - [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation - Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481, - March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>. - - [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of - Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>. - - [RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics - (IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>. - - [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New - Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, - <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches July 2016 - - - [TestTopo] - "Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/ - test_methodology". - -Authors' Addresses - - Maryam Tahhan - Intel - - Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com - - - Billy O'Mahony - Intel - - Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com - - - Al Morton - AT&T Labs - 200 Laurel Avenue South - Middletown,, NJ 07748 - USA - - Phone: +1 732 420 1571 - Fax: +1 732 368 1192 - Email: acmorton@att.com - URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tahhan, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 22] |