path: root/docs/requirements/ietf_draft/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-00.txt

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]