Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure
draft-morton-bmwg-virtual-net-00

Abstract

BMWG has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions. This memo investigates additional considerations when network functions are virtualized and performed in commodity off-the-shelf hardware.

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 August 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 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
• 2. Scope
• 3. New Considerations
• 3.1. Hardware Components
• 3.2. Configuration Parameters
• 3.3. Testing Strategies
• 4. Security Considerations
• 5. IANA Considerations
• 6. Acknowledgements
• 7. References
• 7.1. Normative References
• 7.2. Informative References
• Author's Address

1. Introduction

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. [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] are the cornerstones of the work.

A set of development goals is to reduce costs while increasing flexibility of network devices, and drastically accelerate their deployment. Network Function Virtualization has the promise to achieve these goals, and therefore has garnered much attention. It now seems certain that some network functions will be virtualized following the success of cloud computing and virtual desktops supported by sufficient network path capacity, performance,and widespread deployment; many of the same techniques will be brought to bear.

See http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/nfv for more background, for example, the white papers there may be a useful starting place.

2. Scope

This memo investigates additional methodological considerations necessary when benchmarking Virtual Network Functions (VNF) instantiated and hosted in commodity off-the-shelf hardware (COTS).

A clearly related goal: the benchmarks for the capacity of COTS to host a plurality of VNF instances should be investigated.

A non-goal is any overlap with traditional computer benchmark development and their specific metrics (SPECmark suites such as SPECCPU).

3. New Considerations

This section lists the new considerations which must be addressed to benchmark VNF(s) and their supporting infrastructure.

3.1. Hardware Components

New Hardware devices will become part of the test set-up.

1. High volume server platforms (COTS, possibly with virtual technology enhancements).
2. Large capacity, and high speed, high reliability storage systems.
3. Network Interface ports specially designed for efficient service of many virtual NICs.
4. High capacity Ethernet Switches.

Labs conducting comparisons of different VNFs may be able to use the same hardware platform over many studies, until the steady march of innovations overtakes their capabilities (as happens with the lab's traffic generation and testing devices today).

3.2. Configuration Parameters

It will be necessary to configure and document the settings for the entire COTS platform, including:

• number of server blades (shelf occupation)
• CPUs
• caches
• storage system
• I/O

as well as configurations that support the devices which host the VNF itself:

• Hypervisor
• Virtual Machine
• Infrastructure Virtual Network

and finally, the VNF itself, with items such as:

• specific function being implemented in VNF
• number of VNF components in the service function chain
• number of physical interfaces and links transited in the service function chain

3.3. Testing Strategies

The concept of characterizing performance at capacity limits may change. For example:

1. It may be more representative of system capacity to characterize the case where Virtual Machines (VM, hosting the VNF) are operating at 50% Utilization, and therefore sharing the "real" processing power across many VMs.
2. Another important case stems from the need for partitioning functions. A noisy neighbor (VM hosting a VNF in an infinite loop) would ideally be isolated and the performance of other VMs would continue according to their specifications.
3. System errors will likely occur as transients, implying a distribution of performance characteristics with a long tail (like latency), leading to the need for longer-term tests of each set of configuration and test parameters.
4. The desire for Elasticity and flexibility among network functions will include tests where there is constant flux in the VM instances. Requests for new VMs and Releases for VMs hosting VNFs no longer needed would be an normal operational condition.
5. All physical things can fail, and benchmarking efforts can also examine recovery aided by the virtual architecture with different approaches to resiliency.

4. Security Considerations

Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to technology characterization 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.

5. IANA Considerations

No IANA Action is requested at this time.

6. Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges an encouraging conversation on this topic with Mukhtiar Shaikh and Ramki Krishnan in November 2013.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

7.2. Informative References

Author's Address