draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2544 (if approved) July 4, 2019 Updates: 2544 (if approved) November 18, 2019
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational
Expires: January 5, 2020 Expires: May 21, 2020
Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544 Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544
draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00 draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-01
Abstract Abstract
Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect
Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo
updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames updates the procedures of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames
Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience. Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience.
This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544. This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined in
in[RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and [RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and
[RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944]. [RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944].
Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several
times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the
important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside
the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate
benchmarking. Other specifications implicitly update [RFC2544], such benchmarking. Other specifications implicitly update [RFC2544], such
as the IPv6 Benchmarking Methodologies in [RFC5180]. as the IPv6 Benchmarking Methodologies in [RFC5180].
Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and
Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
test control programs. These tests were used as a basis to evaluate test control programs. These tests were used as a basis to evaluate
stability and repeatability, even across lab set-ups when the test stability and repeatability, even across lab set-ups when the test
platform was migrated to new DUT hardware at the end of 2016. platform was migrated to new DUT hardware at the end of 2016.
When the VSPERF CI results were examined [VSPERF-b2b], several When the VSPERF CI results were examined [VSPERF-b2b], several
aspects of the results were considered notable: aspects of the results were considered notable:
1. Back-to-back Frame Benchmark was very consistent for some fixed 1. Back-to-back Frame Benchmark was very consistent for some fixed
frame sizes, and somewhat variable for others. frame sizes, and somewhat variable for others.
2. The Back-to-back Frame length reported for large frame sizes was 2. The number of Back-to-back Frames with zero loss reported for
unexpectedly long, and no explanation or measurement limit large frame sizes was unexpectedly long (translating to 30
seconds of buffer time), and no explanation or measurement limit
condition was indicated. condition was indicated.
3. Calculation of the extent of buffer time in the DUT helped to 3. Calculation of the extent of buffer time in the DUT helped to
explain the results observed with all frame sizes (for example, explain the results observed with all frame sizes (for example,
some frame sizes cannot exceed the frame header processing rate some frame sizes cannot exceed the frame header processing rate
of the DUT and therefore no buffering occurs, therefore the of the DUT and therefore no buffering occurs, therefore the
results depended on the test equipment and not the DUT). results depended on the test equipment and not the DUT).
4. It was found that the actual buffer time in the DUT could be 4. It was found that the actual buffer time in the DUT could be
estimated using results from the Throughput tests conducted estimated using results from the Throughput tests conducted
according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544], because it appears that according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544]. It is apparent that the
the DUT's frame processing rate may tend to increase the DUT's frame processing rate tends to increase the "implied"
estimate. estimate (measured according to Section 26.4 of [RFC2544]), and a
calculation using the Throughput measurement can reveal a
"corrected" estimate.
Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are
conducted as a prerequisite test, the number of frame sizes required conducted as a prerequisite test, the number of frame sizes required
for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of
the small frame sizes, or the results for large frame sizes can be the small frame sizes, or the results for large frame sizes can be
noted as invalid in the results if tested anyway (these are the frame noted as invalid in the results if tested anyway (these are the frame
sizes for which the back-to-back frame rate cannot exceed the exceed sizes for which the back-to-back frame rate cannot exceed the frame
the frame header processing rate of the DUT and no buffering occurs). header processing rate of the DUT and no buffering occurs).
[VSPERF-b2b] provides the details of the calculation to estimate the [VSPERF-b2b] provides the details of the calculation to estimate the
actual buffer storage available in the DUT, using results from the actual buffer storage available in the DUT, using results from the
Throughput tests for each frame size, and the maximum theoretical Throughput tests for each frame size, and the maximum theoretical
frame rate for the DUT links (which constrain the minimum frame frame rate for the DUT links (which constrain the minimum frame
spacing). Knowledge of approximate buffer storage size (in time or spacing).
bytes) may be useful to estimate whether frame losses will occur if
DUT forwarding is temporarily suspended in a production deployment, The simplified model used in these calculations for the DUT includes
due to an unexpected interruption of frame processing (an a packet header processing function with limited rate of operation,
interruption of duration greater than the estimated buffer would as shown below:
certainly cause lost frames).
|------------ DUT --------|
Generator -> Ingress -> Buffer -> HeaderProc -> Egress -> Receiver
So, in the back2back frame testing:
1. The Ingress burst arrives at Max Theoretical Frame Rate, and
initially the frames are buffered
2. The packet header processing function (HeaderProc) operates at
approximately the "Measured Throughput", removing frames from the
buffer
3. Frames that have been processed are clearly not in the buffer, so
the Corrected DUT buffer time equation (Section 5.4) estimates
and removes the frames that the DUT forwarded on Egress during
the burst.
Knowledge of approximate buffer storage size (in time or bytes) may
be useful to estimate whether frame losses will occur if DUT
forwarding is temporarily suspended in a production deployment, due
to an unexpected interruption of frame processing (an interruption of
duration greater than the estimated buffer would certainly cause lost
frames).
The presentation of OPNFV VSPERF evaluation and development of The presentation of OPNFV VSPERF evaluation and development of
enhanced search alogorithms [VSPERF-BSLV] was discussed at IETF-102. enhanced search alogorithms [VSPERF-BSLV] was discussed at IETF-102.
The enhancements are intended to compensate for transient inerrrupts The enhancements are intended to compensate for transient inerrrupts
that may cause loss at near-Throughput levels of offered load. that may cause loss at near-Throughput levels of offered load.
Subsequent analysis of the results indicates that buffers within the Subsequent analysis of the results indicates that buffers within the
DUT can compensate for some interrupts, and this finding increases DUT can compensate for some interrupts, and this finding increases
the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization described the importance of the Back-to-back frame characterization described
here. here.
4. Prerequisites 4. Prerequisites
The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or
Figure 2 when the tester's sender and recover are different devices. Figure 2 when the tester's sender and receiver are different devices.
Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be
included, unless explicitly modified in the next section. included, unless explicitly modified in the next section.
The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be
specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when
respecting the minimum inter-frame gap. respecting the minimum inter-frame gap.
The test results for the Throughput Benchmark conducted according to The test results for the Throughput Benchmark conducted according to
Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] for all [RFC2544]-RECOMMENDED frame sizes Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] for all [RFC2544]-RECOMMENDED frame sizes
MUST be available to reduce the tested frame size list, or to note MUST be available to reduce the tested frame size list, or to note
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
Buffer Time in seconds, as follows: Buffer Time in seconds, as follows:
Implied DUT Buffer Time = Implied DUT Buffer Time =
Average num of Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate Average num of Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate
The formula above is simply expressing the Burst of Frames in units The formula above is simply expressing the Burst of Frames in units
of time. of time.
The next step is to apply a correction factor that accounts for the The next step is to apply a correction factor that accounts for the
DUT's frame forwarding operation during the test (assuming a simple DUT's frame forwarding operation during the test (assuming the simple
model of the DUT composed of a buffer and a forwarding function). model of the DUT composed of a buffer and a forwarding function,
described in Section 3).
Corrected DUT Buffer Time = Corrected DUT Buffer Time =
Measured Throughput Measured Throughput
= Implied DUT Buffer Time * -------------------------- = Implied DUT Buffer Time * --------------------------
Max Theoretical Frame Rate Max Theoretical Frame Rate
where: where:
1. The "Measured Throughput" is the [RFC2544] Throughput Benchmark 1. The "Measured Throughput" is the [RFC2544] Throughput Benchmark
skipping to change at page 9, line 15 skipping to change at page 9, line 39
6. Reporting 6. Reporting
The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table
with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be
columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count
for each type of data stream tested. for each type of data stream tested.
The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported. The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.
The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
tests SHOULD also be reported. tests SHOULD also be reported (they are referred to as
"Min,Max,StdDev" in the table below).
The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported. The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported.
If the tester operates using a maximum burst length in frames, then If the tester operates using a maximum burst length in frames, then
this maximum length SHOULD be reported. this maximum length SHOULD be reported.
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff | | Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff |
| octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec | | octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec |
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+ +--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
Back-to-Back Frame Results Back-to-Back Frame Results
Static and configuration parameters: Static and configuration parameters:
Number of test repetitions, N Number of test repetitions, N
Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames. Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.
If the tester has an actual frame rate of interest (less than the
Throughput rate), it is useful to estimate the buffer time at that
frame rate:
Actual Buffer Time =
Measured Throughput
= Corrected DUT Buffer Time * --------------------------
Actual Frame Rate
and report this value, properly labeled.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
of[RFC2544]. of[RFC2544].
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
skipping to change at page 10, line 19 skipping to change at page 11, line 14
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA. This memo makes no requests of IANA.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF
project for many contributions to the testing [VSPERF-b2b]. Yoshiaki project for many contributions to the testing [VSPERF-b2b]. Yoshiaki
Itou has also investigated the topic, and made useful suggestions. Itou has also investigated the topic, and made useful suggestions.
Maciek Konstantyowicz also provided many comments and suggestions Maciek Konstantyowicz and Vratko Polak also provided many comments
based on his extensive integration testing and resulting search and suggestions based on extensive integration testing and resulting
algorithm proposals - the most up-to-date feedback possible. search algorithm proposals - the most up-to-date feedback possible.
Tim Carlin also provided comments and support for the draft.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network [RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242, Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>. July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for [RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
skipping to change at page 11, line 30 skipping to change at page 12, line 25
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch] [I-D.vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch]
Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Probabilistic Loss Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Probabilistic Loss
Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (PLRsearch)", draft- Ratio Search for Packet Throughput (PLRsearch)", draft-
vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-01 (work in progress), March 2019. vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch] [I-D.vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch]
Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Multiple Loss Ratio Konstantynowicz, M. and V. Polak, "Multiple Loss Ratio
Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)", draft-vpolak- Search for Packet Throughput (MLRsearch)", draft-vpolak-
mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-01 (work in progress), March 2019. mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
[OPNFV-2017] [OPNFV-2017]
Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane
Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June
2017, 2017,
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/ <https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/
VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>. VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>.
[RFC8239] Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking [RFC8239] Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017, Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017,
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 81 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/