Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-04

Abstract

This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSPERF", particularly in the areas of test set-ups and configuration parameters for the system under test. This project has extended the current and completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, and references existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo describes 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.

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 December 10, 2017.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 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
• 1.1. Abbreviations
• 2. Scope
• 3. Benchmarking Considerations
• 3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions
• 3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks
• 3.3. New Configuration Parameters
• 3.4. Flow classification
• 3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation
• 4. VSPERF Specification Summary
• 5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage
• 5.1. Speed of Activation
• 5.2. Accuracy of Activation section
• 5.3. Reliability of Activation
• 5.4. Scale of Activation
• 5.5. Speed of Operation
• 5.6. Accuracy of Operation
• 5.7. Reliability of Operation
• 5.8. Scalability of Operation
• 5.9. Summary
• 6. Security Considerations
• 7. IANA Considerations
• 8. Acknowledgements
• 9. References
• 9.1. Normative References
• 9.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

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.

A virtual switch (vswitch) is an important aspect of the NFV infrastructure; it provides connectivity between and among physical network functions and virtual network functions. As a result, there are many vswitch benchmarking efforts, but few specifications to guide the many new test design choices. This is a complex problem and an industry-wide work-in-progress. In future, several of BMWG's fundamental specifications will likely be updated as more testing experience helps to form consensus around new methodologies, and BMWG should continue to collaborate with all organizations who share the same goal.

This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization, "VSPERF", through the Danube 3.0 (fourth) release [DanubeRel] to the chartered work of the BMWG (with stable references to their test descriptions). This project has extended the current and completed work of the BMWG in IETF, and references existing literature. For example, the most often referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]), so the foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong. The recommended extensions are specifically in the areas of test set-ups and configuration parameters for the system under test.

See [VSPERFhome] for more background, and the OPNFV website for general information [OPNFV].

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.

1.1. Abbreviations

ACK Acknowledge
ACPI Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
BIOS Basic Input Output System
BMWG Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
CPDP Control Plane Data Plane
CPU Central Processing Unit
DIMM Dual In-line Memory Module
DPDK Data Plane Development Kit
DUT Device Under Test
GRUB Grand Unified Bootloader
ID Identification
IMIX Internet Mix
IP Internet Protocol
IPPM IP Performance Metrics 
LAN Local Area Network
LTD Level Test Design 
NFV Network Functions Virtualisation
NIC Network Interface Card
NUMA Non Uniform Memory Access
OPNFV Open Platform for NFV
OS Operating System
PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect
PDV Packet Delay Variation
SR/IOV Single Root/Input Output Virtualization
SUT System Under Test
SW Software
TCP Transmission control Protocol
TSO TCP Segment Offload
UDP User Datagram Protocol
VM Virtual Machine
VNF Virtualised Network Function
VSPERF OPNFV vSwitch Performance Project

For the purposes of this document, the following abbreviations apply:

2. Scope

The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to describe key aspects of vswitch benchmarking, particularly in the areas of test set-ups and configuration parameters for the system under test, and extend the body of extensive BMWG literature and experience. Initial feedback indicates that many of these extensions may be applicable beyond this memo's current scope (to hardware switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example). Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and relevant commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure.

The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many types of vswitches, and remain vswitch-agnostic to great degree. There has been no attempt to track and test all features of any specific vswitch implementation.

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 physical network functions. The BMWG has recommended to re-use existing benchmarks and methods in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net], and the OPNFV LTD expands on them as described here. A key configuration aspect for vswitches is the number of parallel CPU cores required to achieve comparable performance with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale will be reached before the vswitch can achieve the comparable performance level.

It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application running on the System Under Test (SUT), so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of internetworking functions. However, internally-measured metrics such as these are not benchmarks; they may be useful for the audience (operations) to know, and may also be useful if there is a problem encountered during testing.

Benchmark Comparability between virtual and physical/hardware implementations of equivalent functions will likely place more detailed and exact requirements on the *testing systems* (in terms of stream generation, algorithms to search for max values, and their configurations of course). This is another area for standards development to appreciate. However, the is a topic for a future draft.

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.

It has been the goal of the project to produce repeatable results, and a large set of the parameters believed to be critical is provided so that the benchmarking community can better appreciate the increase in configuration complexity inherent in this work. The parameter set below is assumed sufficient for the infrastructure in use by the VSPERF project to obtain repeatable results from test-to-test.

Hardware details (platform, processor, memory, and network) including:

• BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were modified
• Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor package, OS...)
• CPU microcode level
• Number of enabled cores
• Number of cores used for the test
• Memory information (type and size)
• Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations
• Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer, versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into)
• NIC interrupt configuration (and any special features in use)
• PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ACK option, etc.)

Software details including:

• OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the console on one system)
• OS version (for host and VNF)
• Kernel version (for host and VNF)
• GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)
• Hypervisor details (Type and version)
• Selected vswitch, version number or commit id used
• vswitch launch command line if it has been parameterised
• Memory allocation to the vswitch
• which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels
• DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used
• Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugepages/elsewhere
• VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non-persistent
• Number of VMs
• Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver
• Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host
• Number vNIC interrupt configuration
• Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vswitch itself) on the host
• Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes (taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.

Test Traffic Information:

• Traffic type - UDP, TCP, others.
• Frame Sizes - fixed or IMIX [RFC6985](with [IEEE802.1ac], frames may be longer than 1500 bytes, and up to 2000 bytes)
• Deployment Scenario - defines the communications path in the SUT

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, or have arrived on the same physical or logical 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 (physical or logical), the source MAC address, the destination MAC address, the source IP address, the destination IP address and the Ethernet protocol type field (although classification may take place on other fields, such as source and destination transport port numbers). It is essential to increase the flow timeout time on a vswitch before conducting any performance tests that do not intend to measure the flow setup time, see Section 3 of [RFC2889]. 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.

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.

Figure 1 Benchmark platform forwarding capability

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   |          Simple Forwarding App           |   |  Host
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
 +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 2 Benchmark VNF forwarding capability

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   |                 VNF                      |   |   |
 |   |                                          |   |   |
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |          Passthrough/SR-IOV              |   |  Host
 |   +------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 NIC                      |   |   |
 +---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

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 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.
   • Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vswitch 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. VSPERF 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:

• [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
• [RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
• [RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization
• [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:

• [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices

It is recommended that these references are included in future benchmarking specifications:

• [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
• [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, additional performance metrics are needed. 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, and percentiles). 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 designed to collect the metrics below:

• 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.
• Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.
• Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover outliers.
• Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs with increasing number of flows, number of active ports, configuration complexity of the forwarding logic, etc.
• Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data through the switch.
• Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how closely the datapath and the control path are coupled, as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT (example: delay of the initial packet of a flow).
• CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual switch’s footprint on the system, conducted as auxiliary measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.
• The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours, but only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT exhibits instability over time). The key performance characteristics and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using short duration tests) prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose of soak tests is to capture transient changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the low probability coincidence of two or more processes. The stability of the DUT is the paramount consideration, so performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous testing, and this results in use of [RFC2889] Frame Rate metrics instead of [RFC2544] Throughput (which requires stopping traffic to allow time for all traffic to exit internal queues), for example.

Additional test specification development should include:

• Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the transaction rate through the switch.
• Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
• Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003 requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration technologies applied to vswitches.

The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network means that it is necessary to characterize the performance of a vswitch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios under consideration include:

Figure 3 Physical port to virtual switch to physical port

                                                      __
 +--------------------------------------------------+   |
 |              +--------------------+              |   |
 |              |                    |              |   |
 |              |                    v              |   |  Host
 |   +--------------+            +--------------+   |   |
 |   |   phy port   |  vswitch   |   phy port   |   |   |
 +---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
            ^                           :
            |                           |
            :                           v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 4 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                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 5 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                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 6 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF

                                                       __
 +---------------------------------------------------+   |
 |                                                   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 Application               |   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |       ^                                           |   |
 |       |                                           |   |  Guest
 |       :                                           |   |
 |   +---------------+                               |   |
 |   | logical port 0|                               |   |
 +---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
         ^
         |
         :                                            __
 +---+---------------+------------------------------+   |
 |   | logical port 0|                              |   |
 |   +---------------+                              |   |
 |       ^                                          |   |
 |       |                                          |   |  Host
 |       :                                          |   |
 |   +--------------+                               |   |
 |   |   phy port   |  vswitch                      |   |
 +---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
            ^
            |
            :
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 7 VNF to virtual switch to physical port

                                                       __
 +---------------------------------------------------+   |
 |                                                   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |   |                 Application               |   |   |
 |   +-------------------------------------------+   |   |
 |                                          :        |   |
 |                                          |        |   |  Guest
 |                                          v        |   |
 |                               +---------------+   |   |
 |                               | logical port  |   |   |
 +-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
                                            :
                                            |
                                            v         __
 +------------------------------+---------------+---+   |
 |                              | logical port  |   |   |
 |                              +---------------+   |   |
 |                                          :       |   |
 |                                          |       |   |  Host
 |                                          v       |   |
 |                               +--------------+   |   |
 |                     vswitch   |   phy port   |   |   |
 +-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
                                        :
                                        |
                                        v
 +--------------------------------------------------+
 |                                                  |
 |                traffic generator                 |
 |                                                  |
 +--------------------------------------------------+

Figure 8 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].

5.1. Speed of Activation

• Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
• PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency

5.2. Accuracy of Activation section

• CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition

5.3. Reliability of Activation

• Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
• Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime

5.4. Scale of Activation

• Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity

5.5. Speed of Operation

• Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate
• Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
• Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification
• Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
• Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
• Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
• Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
• Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
• Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio

5.6. Accuracy of Operation

• Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
• Throughput.RFC2544.Profile

5.7. Reliability of Operation

• Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
• Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
• PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak

5.8. Scalability of Operation

• Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
• MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
• Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
• Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio

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.

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.

We also acknowledge the early work in [I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance], and useful discussion with the authors.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

9.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses