Internet DRAFT - draft-bhuvan-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth
draft-bhuvan-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth
Internet-Draft Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
Network Working Group Anton Basil
Intended Status: Informational Veryx Technologies
Expires: January 18, 2016 Mark Tassinari
Hewlett-Packard
Vishwas Manral
Ionos Corp
Sarah Banks
VSS Monitoring
July 19, 2015
Benchmarking Methodology for SDN Controller Performance
draft-bhuvan-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-01
Abstract
This document defines the methodologies for benchmarking performance
of SDN controllers. Terminology related to benchmarking SDN
controllers is described in the companion terminology document.
SDN controllers have been implemented with many varying designs in
order to achieve their intended network functionality. Hence, the
authors have taken the approach of considering an SDN controller as
a black box, defining the methodology in a manner that is agnostic
to protocols and network services supported by controllers. The
intent of this document is to provide a standard mechanism to
measure the performance of all controller implementations.
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 18, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
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. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Test setup - Controller working in Standalone Mode . . . . 4
3.2 Test setup - Controller working in Cluster Mode . . . . . . 5
4. Test Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Network Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Test Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3 Connection Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4 Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation . . . . . 7
4.5 Connectivity Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.6 Test Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Test Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1 Network Topology Discovery Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.2 Asynchronous Message Processing Time . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1.3 Asynchronous Message Processing Rate . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1.4 Reactive Path Provisioning Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1.5 Proactive Path Provisioning Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.6 Reactive Path Provisioning Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.7 Proactive Path Provisioning Rate . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.8 Network Topology Change Detection Time . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.1 Control Sessions Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.2 Network Discovery Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.3 Forwarding Table Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.1 Exception Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3.2 Denial of Service Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.1 Controller Failover Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4.2 Network Re-Provisioning Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Appendix A - Example Test Topologies . 26
11. Appendix B - Benchmarking Methodology using OF Controllers . 26
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Introduction
This document provides generic methodologies for benchmarking SDN
controller performance. An SDN controller may support many
northbound and southbound protocols, implement a wide range of
applications, and work solely, or as a group to achieve the desired
functionality. This document considers an SDN controller as a black
box, regardless of design and implementation. The tests defined in
the document can be used to benchmark SDN controller for
performance, scalability, reliability and security independent of
northbound and southbound protocols. These tests can be performed
on an SDN controller running as a virtual machine (VM) instance or
on a bare metal server. This document is intended for those who
want to measure the SDN controller performance as well as compare
various SDN controllers performance.
Conventions used in this document
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.
2. Scope
This document defines methodology to measure the networking
metrics of SDN controllers. The tests defined in this document
enable benchmarking of SDN Controllers in two ways; as a standalone
controller and as a cluster of homogeneous controllers. These tests
are recommended for execution in lab environments rather than in live
network deployments. Performance benchmarking of a federation of
controllers is beyond the scope of this document.
3. Test Setup
The tests defined in this document enable measurement of an SDN
controllers performance in standalone mode and cluster mode. This
section defines common reference topologies that are later referred
to in individual tests.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
3.1 Test setup - Controller working in Standalone Mode
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Management Plane Test Emulator |
| |
| -------------------- |
| | SDN Applications | |
| -------------------- |
| |
+-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+
|
|
| (Northbound interface)
+-------------------------------+
| +----------------+ |
| | SDN Controller | |
| +----------------+ |
| |
| Device Under Test (DUT) |
+-------------------------------+
| (Southbound interface)
|
|
+-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+
| |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | SDN |l1 ln-1| SDN | |
| | Node 1 |----- .... -----| Node n | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| |l0 |ln |
| | | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | Test Traffic | | Test Traffic | |
| | Generator | | Generator | |
| | (TP1) | | (TP2) | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| |
| Forwarding Plane Test Emulator |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
3.2 Test setup - Controller working in Cluster Mode
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Management Plane Test Emulator |
| |
| -------------------- |
| | SDN Applications | |
| -------------------- |
| |
+-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+
|
|
| (Northbound interface)
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| | SDN Controller 1 | <--E/W--> | SDN Controller n | |
| ------------------ ------------------ |
| |
| Device Under Test (DUT) |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| (Southbound interface)
|
|
+-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+
| |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| | SDN |l1 ln-1| SDN | |
| | Node 1 |----- .... -----| Node n | |
| +---------+ +---------+ |
| |l0 |ln |
| | | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| | Test Traffic | | Test Traffic | |
| | Generator | | Generator | |
| | (TP1) | | (TP2) | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ |
| |
| Forwarding Plane Test Emulator |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
4. Test Considerations
4.1 Network Topology
The test cases SHOULD use Leaf-Spine topology with atleast 1 SDN node
in the topology for benchmarking. The test traffic generators TP1
and TP2 SHOULD be connected to the first and the last SDN leaf node.
If a test case uses test topology with 1 SDN node, the test traffic
generators TP1 and TP2 SHOULD be connected to the same node. However
to achieve a complete performance characterization of the SDN
controller, it is recommended that the controller be benchmarked for
many network topologies and varying number of SDN nodes. This
document includes a few sample test topologies, defined in
Section 10 - Appendix A for reference. Further, care should be taken
to make sure that a loop prevention mechanism is enabled either in
the SDN controller, or in the network when the topology contains
redundant network paths.
4.2 Test Traffic
Test traffic are used to notify the controller about the arrival
of new flows. The test cases SHOULD use multiple frame sizes as
recommended in RFC 2544 for benchmarking.
4.3 Connection Setup
There may be controller implementations that support unencrypted
and encrypted network connections with SDN nodes. Further, the
controller may have backward compatibility with SDN nodes running
older versions of southbound protocols. It is recommended that the
controller performance be measured with one or more applicable
connection setup methods defined below.
1. Unencrypted connection with SDN nodes, running same protocol
version.
2. Unencrypted connection with SDN nodes, running different protocol
versions.
Example:
1. Controller running current protocol version and switch
running older protocol version
2. Controller running older protocol version and switch
running current protocol version
3. Encrypted connection with SDN nodes, running same protocol version
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
4. Encrypted connection with SDN nodes, running different protocol
versions.
Example:
1. Controller running current protocol version and switch
running older protocol version
2. Controller running older protocol version and switch
running current protocol version
4.4 Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation
The measurement accuracy depends on several factors including the
point of observation where the indications are captured. For example,
the notification can be observed at the controller or test emulator.
The test operator SHOULD make the observations/measurements at the
interfaces of test emulator unless it is explicitly mentioned
otherwise in the individual test.
4.5 Connectivity Recommendation
The SDN controller in the test setup SHOULD be connected directly
with the forwarding and the management plane test emulators to
avoid any delays or failure introduced by the intermediate devices
during benchmarking tests.
4.6 Test Repeatability
To increase the confidence in measured result, it is recommended that
this test SHOULD be performed atleast 10 times with same number of
nodes using same topology.
5. Test Reporting
Each test has a reporting format which is specific to individual
tests. In addition, the following test configuration parameters and
controller settings parameters MUST be reflected in the test report.
Test Configuration Parameters:
1. Controller name and version
2. Northbound protocols and versions
3. Southbound protocols and versions
4. Controller redundancy mode (Standalone or Cluster Mode)
5. Connection setup (Unencrypted or Encrypted)
6. Network Topology (Mesh or Tree or Linear)
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
7. SDN Node Type (Physical or Virtual or Emulated)
8. Number of Nodes
9. Number of Links
10. Test Traffic Type
11. Controller System Configuration (e.g., CPU, Memory, Operating
System, Interface Speed etc.,)
12. Reference Test Setup (e.g., Section 3.1 etc.,)
Controller Settings Parameters:
1. Topology re-discovery timeout
2. Controller redundancy mode (e.g., active-standby etc.,)
6. Benchmarking Tests
6.1 Performance
6.1.1 Network Topology Discovery Time
Objective:
Measure the time taken by the SDN controller to discover the
network topology (nodes and links), expressed in milliseconds.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST support network discovery.
2. Tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology
information either through the controller's management
interface or northbound interface to determine if the
discovery was successful and complete.
3. Ensure that the controller's topology re-discovery timeout
has been set to the maximum value to avoid initiation of
re-discovery process in the middle of the test.
Procedure:
1. Ensure that the controller is operational, its network
applications, northbound and southbound interfaces are up and
running.
2. Establish the network connections between controller and
SDN nodes.
3. Record the time for the first discovery message (Tm1)
received from the controller at forwarding plane test emulator
interface I1.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
4. Query the controller every 3 seconds to obtain the discovered
network topology information through the northbound
interface or the management interface and compare it with the
deployed network topology information.
5. Stop the test when the discovered topology information is
matching with the deployed network topology or the discovered
topology information for 3 consecutive queries return the same
details.
6. Record the time last discovery message (Tmn) sent to
controller from the forwarding plane test emulator
interface (I1) when the test completed successfully.
(e.g., the topology matches).
Measurement:
Topology Discovery Time Tr1 = Tmn-Tm1.
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Topology Discovery Time = -----------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Topology Discovery Time results MUST be reported in the
format of a table, with a row for each successful iteration. The
last row of the table indicates the average Topology Discovery
Time.
If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes over the
same topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a
graph. The X coordinate SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the
Y coordinate SHOULD be the average Topology Discovery Time.
If this test is repeated with same number of nodes over different
topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
The X coordinate SHOULD be the Topology Type, the Y coordinate
SHOULD be the average Topology Discovery Time.
6.1.2 Asynchronous Message Processing Time
Objective:
Measure the time taken by the SDN controller to process an
asynchronous message, expressed in milliseconds.
Reference Test Setup:
This test SHOULD use one of the test setup described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST have completed the network topology
discovery for the connected SDN nodes.
Procedure:
1. Generate asynchronous messages from every connected SDN node,
to the SDN controller, one at a time in series from the
forwarding plane test emulator for the test duration.
2. Record every request transmit (T1) timestamp and the
corresponding response (R1) received timestamp at the
forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1) for every
successful message exchange.
Measurement:
(R1-T1) + (R2-T2)..(Rn-Tn)
Asynchronous Message Processing Time Tr1 = -----------------------
Nrx
Where Nrx is the total number of successful messages exchanged
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3..Trn
Average Asynchronous Message Processing Time= --------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Asynchronous Message Processing Time results MUST be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each iteration.
The last row of the table indicates the average Asynchronous
Message Processing Time.
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Successful messages exchanged (Nrx)
If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes with same
topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
The X coordinate SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the
Y coordinate SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing
Time.
If this test is repeated with same number of nodes using
different topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form
of a graph. The X coordinate SHOULD be the Topology Type, the
Y coordinate SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing
Time.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
6.1.3 Asynchronous Message Processing Rate
Objective:
To measure the maximum number of asynchronous messages (session
aliveness check message, new flow arrival notification
message etc.) a controller can process within the test duration,
expressed in messages processed per second.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST have completed the network topology
discovery for the connected SDN nodes.
Procedure:
1. Generate asynchronous messages continuously at the maximum
possible rate on the established connections from all the
connected SDN nodes in the forwarding plane test emulator
for the Test Duration (Td).
2. Record total number of responses received from the
controller (Nrx) as well as the number of messages sent(Ntx) to
the controller within the test duration(Td) at the forwarding
plane test emulator interface (I1) .
Measurement:
Nrx
Asynchronous Message Processing Rate Tr1 = -----
Td
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3..Trn
Average Asynchronous Message Processing Rate= --------------------
Total Test Iterations
Loss Ratio = (Ntx-Nrx)/100.
Reporting Format:
The Asynchronous Message Processing Rate results MUST be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each iteration.
The last row of the table indicates the average Asynchronous
Message Processing Rate.
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Offered rate (Ntx)
- Loss Ratio
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes over same
topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
The X coordinate SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the
Y coordinate SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing
Rate.
If this test is repeated with same number of nodes over different
topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
The X coordinate SHOULD be the Topology Type, the Y coordinate
SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing Rate.
6.1.4 Reactive Path Provisioning Time
Objective:
To measure the time taken by the controller to setup a path
reactively between source and destination node, expressed in
milliseconds.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information
for the deployed network topology.
2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
destination endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned.
This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
provisioning.
3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in SDN node is
'send to controller'.
4. Ensure that each SDN node in a path requires the controller
to make the forwarding decision while paving the entire path.
Procedure:
1. Send a single traffic stream from test traffic generator TP1 to
test traffic generator TP2.
2. Record the time of the first flow provisioning request message
sent to the controller(Tsf1) from the SDN node at the
forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1).
3. Wait for the arrival of first traffic frame at the Traffic
Endpoint TP2 or the expiry of test duration (Td).
4. Record the time of the last flow provisioning response message
received from the controller(Tdf1) to the SDN node at the
forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1).
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Measurement:
Reactive Path Provisioning Time Tr1 = Tdf1-Tsf1.
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time = -----------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Reactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in
the format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row
of the table indicates the Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Number of SDN nodes in the path
6.1.5 Proactive Path Provisioning Time
Objective:
To measure the time taken by the controller to setup a path
proactively between source and destination node, expressed in
milliseconds.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information
for the deployed network topology.
2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
destination endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned.
This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
provisioning.
3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in SDN
node is 'drop'.
Procedure:
1. Send single traffic stream from test traffic generator TP1 to
TP2.
2. Install the flow entries to reach from test traffic generator
TP1 to the test traffic generator TP2 through controller's
northbound or management interface.
3. Wait for the arrival of first traffic frame at the test traffic
generator TP2 or the expiry of test duration (Td).
4. Record the time when proactive flow is provisioned in the
Controller (Tsf1) at the management plane test emulator
interface I2.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
5. Record the time of the last flow provisioning message
received from the controller(Tdf1) at the forwarding plane
test emulator interface I1.
Measurement:
Proactive Flow Provisioning Time Tr1 = Tdf1-Tsf1.
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Proactive Path Provisioning Time = -----------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Proactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in
the format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row
of the table indicates the Average Proactive Path Provisioning
Time.
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Number of SDN nodes in the path
6.1.6 Reactive Path Provisioning Rate
Objective:
Measure the maximum number of independent paths a controller
can concurrently establish between source and destination nodes
reactively within the test duration, expressed in paths per
second.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information
for the deployed network topology.
2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
destination addresses for which the paths have to be
provisioned. This can be achieved through dynamic learning or
static provisioning.
3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in SDN node is
'send to controller'.
4. Ensure that each SDN node in a path requires the controller
to make the forwarding decision while paving the entire path.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Send traffic with unique source and destination addresses from
test traffic generator TP1.
2. Record total number of unique traffic frames (Ndf) received at
the test traffic generator TP2 within the test duration (Td).
Measurement:
Ndf
Reactive Path Provisioning Rate Tr1 = ------
Td
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Reactive Path Provisioning Rate = ------------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in
the format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row
of the table indicates the Average Reactive Path Provisioning
Rate.
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Number of SDN nodes in the path
- Offered rate
6.1.7 Proactive Path Provisioning Rate
Objective:
Measure the maximum number of independent paths a controller
can concurrently establish between source and destination nodes
proactively within the test duration, expressed in paths per
second.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information
for the deployed network topology.
2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
destination addresses for which the paths have to be
provisioned. This can be achieved through dynamic learning or
static provisioning.
3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in SDN
node is 'drop'.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Send traffic continuously with unique source and destination
addresses from test traffic generator TP1.
2. Install corresponding flow entries to reach from simulated
sources at the test traffic generator TP1 to the simulated
destinations at test traffic generator TP2 through
controller's northbound or management interface.
3. Record total number of unique traffic frames received Ndf) at
the test traffic generator TP2 within the test duration (Td).
Measurement:
Ndf
Proactive Path Provisioning Rate Tr1 = ------
Td
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Proactive Path Provisioning Rate = -----------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in
the format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row
of the table indicates the Average Proactive Path Provisioning
Rate.
The report should capture the following information in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
- Number of SDN nodes in the path
- Offered rate
6.1.8 Network Topology Change Detection Time
Objective:
Measure the time taken by the controller to detect any changes
in the network topology, expressed in milliseconds.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST have discovered the network topology
information for the deployed network topology.
2. The periodic network discovery operation should be configured
to twice the Test duration (Td) value.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Trigger a topology change event by bringing down an active
SDN node in the topology.
2. Record the time when the first topology change notification
is sent to the controller (Tcn) at the forwarding plane
test emulator interface (I1).
3. Stop the test when the controller sends the first topology
re-discovery message to the SDN node or the expiry of test
interval (Td).
4. Record the time when the first topology re-discovery message
is received from the controller (Tcd) at the forwarding plane
test emulator interface (I1)
Measurement:
Network Topology Change Detection Time Tr1 = Tcd-Tcn.
Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
Average Network Topology Change
Detection Time = ---------------------------
Total Test Iterations
Reporting Format:
The Network Topology Change Detection Time results MUST be
reported in the format of a table with a row for each iteration.
The last row of the table indicates the average Network Topology
Change Time.
6.2 Scalability
6.2.1 Control Session Capacity
Objective:
Measure the maximum number of control sessions that the controller
can maintain.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Procedure:
1. Establish control connection with controller from every SDN
nodes emulated in the forwarding plane test emulator.
2. Stop the test when the controller starts dropping the control
connection.
3. Record the number of successful connections established with
the controller (CCn) at the forwarding plane test emulator.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Measurement:
Control Sessions Capacity = CCn.
Reporting Format:
The Control Session Capacity results MUST be reported in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
6.2.2 Network Discovery Size
Objective:
Measure the network size (number of nodes, links, and hosts)
that a controller can discover.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller MUST support automatic network discovery.
2. Tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology
information either through controller's management interface
or northbound interface.
Procedure:
1. Establish the network connections between controller and
network nodes.
2. Query the controller for the discovered network topology
information and compare it with the deployed network topology
information.
3a. Increase the number of nodes by 1 when the comparison is
successful and repeat the test.
3b. Decrease the number of nodes by 1 when the comparison fails
and repeat the test.
4. Continue the test until the comparison of step 3b is
successful.
5. Record the number of nodes for the last iteration (Ns) where
the topology comparison was successful.
Measurement:
Network Discovery Size = Ns.
Reporting Format:
The Network Discovery Size results MUST be reported in addition
to the configuration parameters captured in section 5.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
6.2.3 Forwarding Table Capacity
Objective:
Measure the maximum number of flow entries a controller can
manage in its Forwarding table.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. The controller Forwarding table should be empty.
2. Flow Idle time MUST be set to higher or infinite value.
3. The controller MUST have completed network topology
discovery.
4. Tester should be able to retrieve the forwarding table
information either through controller's management interface
or northbound interface.
Procedure:
Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode:
1. Send bi-directional traffic continuously with unique source
and/or destination addresses from test traffic generators
TP1 and TP2 at the asynchronous message processing rate of
controller.
2. Query the controller at a regular interval (e.g., 5 seconds)
for the number of learnt flow entries from its northbound
interface.
3. Stop the test when the retrieved value is constant for three
consecutive iterations and record the value received from the
last query (Nrp).
Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode:
1. Install unique flows continuously through controller's
northbound or management interface until a failure response
is received from the controller.
2. Record the total number of successful responses (Nrp).
Note:
Some controller designs for proactive flow provisioning mode may
require the switch to send flow setup requests in order to
generate flow setup responses. In such cases, it is recommended
to generate bi-directional traffic for the provisioned flows.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Measurement:
Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode:
Max Flow Entries = Total number of flows provisioned (Nrp)
Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode:
Max Flow Entries = Total number of learnt flow entries (Nrp)
Forwarding Table Capacity = Max Flow Entries.
Reporting Format:
The Forwarding Table Capacity results MUST be tabulated with the
following information in addition to the configuration parameters
captured in section 5.
- Provisioning Type (Proactive/Reactive)
6.3 Security
6.3.1 Exception Handling
Objective:
Determine the effect of handling error packets and
notifications on performance tests. The impact MUST be measured
for the following performance tests
a. Path Provisioning Rate
b. Path Provisioning Time
c. Network Topology Change Detection Time
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline
measurement results for the above performance tests.
2. Ensure that the invalid messages are not dropped by the
intermediate devices connecting the controller and SDN nodes.
Procedure:
1. Perform the above listed performance tests and send 1% of
messages from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate as
invalid messages from the connected SDN nodes emulated at the
forwarding plane test emulator.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
2. Perform the above listed performance tests and send 2% of
messages from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate as
invalid messages from the connected SDN nodes emulated at the
forwarding plane test emulator.
Note:
1. Invalid messages can be frames with incorrect protocol fields
or any form of failure notifications sent towards controller.
Measurement:
Measurement MUST be done as per the equation defined in the
corresponding performance test measurement section.
Reporting Format:
The Exception Handling results MUST be reported in the format
of table with a column for each of the below parameters and row
for each of the listed performance tests.
- Without Exceptions
- With 1% Exceptions
- With 2% Exceptions
6.3.2 Denial of Service Handling
Objective:
Determine the effect of handling DoS attacks on performance
and scalability tests the impact MUST be measured for the
following tests:
a. Path Provisioning Rate
b. Path Provisioning Time
c. Network Topology Change Detection Time
d. Network Discovery Size
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline
measurement results for the above tests.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Perform the listed tests and launch a DoS attack towards
controller while the test is running.
Note:
DoS attacks can be launched on one of the following interfaces.
a. Northbound (e.g., Sending a huge number of requests on
northbound interface)
b. Management (e.g., Ping requests to controller's management
interface)
c. Southbound (e.g., TCP SYNC messages on southbound interface)
Measurement:
Measurement MUST be done as per the equation defined in the
corresponding test's measurement section.
Reporting Format:
The DoS Attacks Handling results MUST be reported in the format
of table with a column for each of the below parameters and row
for each of the listed tests.
- Without any attacks
- With attacks
The report should also specify the nature of attack and the
interface.
6.4 Reliability
6.4.1 Controller Failover Time
Objective:
Measure the time taken to switch from an active controller
to the backup controller, when the controllers work in
redundancy mode and the active controller fails.
Reference Test Setup:
The test SHOULD use the test setup described in section 3.2 of
this document.
Prerequisite:
1. Master controller election MUST be completed.
2. Nodes are connected to the controller cluster as per the
Redundancy Mode (RM).
3. The controller cluster should have completed the network
topology discovery.
4. The SDN Node MUST send all new flows to the controller when
it receives from the test traffic generator.
5. Controller should have learnt the location of destination
(D1) at test traffic generator TP2.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Send uni-directional traffic continuously with incremental
sequence number and source addresses from test test traffic
generator TP1 at the rate that the controller processes without
any drops.
2. Ensure that there are no packet drops observed at the test
traffic generator TP2.
3. Bring down the active controller.
4. Stop the test when a first frame received on TP2 after
failover operation.
5. Record the time at which the last valid frame received (T1)
at test traffic generator TP2 before sequence error and the
first valid frame received (T2) after the sequence error at TP2
Measurement:
Controller Failover Time = (T2 - T1)
Packet Loss = Number of missing packet sequences.
Reporting Format:
The Controller Failover Time results MUST be tabulated with the
following information.
- Number of cluster nodes
- Redundancy mode
- Controller Failover
- Time Packet Loss
- Cluster keep-alive interval
6.4.2 Network Re-Provisioning Time
Objective:
Compute the time taken to re-route the traffic by the
controller when there is a failure in existing traffic paths.
Reference Test Setup:
This test SHOULD use one of the test setup described in
section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document.
Prerequisite:
1. Network with the given number of nodes and redundant paths
MUST be deployed.
2. Ensure that the controller MUST have knowledge about the
location of test traffic generators TP1 and TP2.
3. Ensure that the controller does not pre-provision the alternate
path in the emulated SDN nodes at the forwarding plane test
emulator.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Procedure:
1. Send bi-directional traffic continuously with unique sequence
number from TP1 and TP2.
2. Bring down a link or switch in the traffic path.
3. Stop the test after receiving first frame after network
re-convergence.
4. Record the time of last received frame prior to the frame loss
at TP2 (TP2-Tlfr) and the time of first frame received after
the frame loss at TP2 (TP2-Tffr).
5. Record the time of last received frame prior to the frame loss
at TP1 (TP1-Tlfr) and the time of first frame received after
the frame loss at TP1 (TP1-Tffr).
Measurement:
Forward Direction Path Re-Provisioning Time (FDRT)
= (TP2-Tffr - TP2-Tlfr)
Reverse Direction Path Re-Provisioning Time (RDRT)
= (TP1-Tffr - TP1-Tlfr)
Network Re-Provisioning Time = (FDRT+RDRT)/2
Forward Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames
at TP1
Reverse Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames
at TP2
Reporting Format:
The Network Re-Provisioning Time results MUST be tabulated with
the following information.
- Number of nodes in the primary path
- Number of nodes in the alternate path
- Network Re-Provisioning Time
- Forward Direction Packet Loss
- Reverse Direction Packet Loss
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2544] S. Bradner, J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices",RFC 2544, March 1999.
[RFC2330] V. Paxson, G. Almes, J. Mahdavi, M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics",RFC 2330,
May 1998.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
[RFC6241] R. Enns, M. Bjorklund, J. Schoenwaelder, A. Bierman,
"Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",RFC 6241,
July 2011.
[RFC6020] M. Bjorklund, "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010
[RFC5440] JP. Vasseur, JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[OpenFlow Switch Specification] ONF,"OpenFlow Switch Specification"
Version 1.4.0 (Wire Protocol 0x05), October 14, 2013.
[I-D.sdn-controller-benchmark-term] Bhuvaneswaran.V, Anton Basil,
Mark.T, Vishwas Manral, Sarah Banks "Terminology for
Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance",
draft-bhuvan-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-00
(Work in progress), March 23, 2015
[I-D.i2rs-architecture] A. Atlas, J. Halpern, S. Hares, D. Ward,
T. Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the
Routing System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09
(Work in progress), March 6, 2015
7.2 Informative References
[OpenContrail] Ankur Singla, Bruno Rijsman, "OpenContrail
Architecture Documentation",
http://opencontrail.org/opencontrail-architecture-documentation
[OpenDaylight] OpenDaylight Controller:Architectural Framework,
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_Controller
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not have any IANA requests.
9. Security Considerations
Benchmarking tests described in this document are limited to the
performance characterization of controller in lab environment with
isolated network.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
10. Appendix A - Example Test Topologies
10.1. Leaf-Spine Topology - Three Tier Network Architecture
+----------+
| SDN |
| Node | (Core)
+----------+
/ \
/ \
+------+ +------+
| SDN | | SDN | (Spine)
| Node |.. | Node |
+------+ +------+
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
l1 / / \ ln-1
/ / \ \
+--------+ +-------+
| SDN | | SDN |
| Node |.. | Node | (Leaf)
+--------+ +-------+
10.2. Leaf-Spine Topology - Two Tier Network Architecture
+------+ +------+
| SDN | | SDN | (Spine)
| Node |.. | Node |
+------+ +------+
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
l1 / / \ ln-1
/ / \ \
+--------+ +-------+
| SDN | | SDN |
| Node |.. | Node | (Leaf)
+--------+ +-------+
11. Appendix A - Benchmarking Methodology using OpenFlow(OF) Controllers
This section gives an overview of OpenFlow protocol and provides
test methodology to benchmark SDN controllers supporting OpenFlow
southbound protocol.
11.1. Protocol Overview
OpenFlow is an open standard protocol defined by Open Networking
Foundation (ONF), used for programming the forwarding plane of
network switches or routers via a centralized controller.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.2. Messages Overview
OpenFlow protocol supports three messages types namely controller-
to-switch, asynchronous and symmetric.
Controller-to-switch messages are initiated by the controller and
used to directly manage or inspect the state of the switch. These
messages allow controllers to query/configure the switch (Features,
Configuration messages), collect information from switch (Read-
State message), send packets on specified port of switch (Packet-
out message), and modify switch forwarding plane and state (Modify-
State, Role-Request messages etc.).
Asynchronous messages are generated by the switch without a
controller soliciting them. These messages allow switches to update
controllers to denote an arrival of new flow (Packet-in), switch
state change (Flow-Removed, Port-status) and error (Error).
Symmetric messages are generated in either direction without
solicitation. These messages allow switches and controllers to set
up connection (Hello), verify for liveness (Echo) and offer
additional functionalities (Experimenter).
11.3. Connection Overview
OpenFlow channel is used to exchange OpenFlow message between an
OpenFlow switch and an OpenFlow controller. The OpenFlow channel
connection can be setup using plain TCP or TLS. By default, a
switch establishes single connection with SDN controller. A switch
may establish multiple parallel connections to single controller
(auxiliary connection) or multiple controllers to handle controller
failures and load balancing.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.4 Performance Benchmarking Tests
11.4.1 Network Topology Discovery Time
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Controller Application
| | |
| |<Initialize controller |
| |app.,NB and SB interfaces> |
| | |
|<Deploy network with | |
| given no. of OF switches> | |
| | |
| OFPT_HELLO Exchange | |
|<-------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with LLDP | |
| to all switches | |
(Tm1)|<---------------------------| |
| | |
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-1| |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-2| |
|--------------------------->| |
| . | |
| . | |
| | |
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-n| |
(Tmn)|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| | <Wait for the expiry |
| | of Test Duration (Td)>|
| | |
| | Query the controller for|
| | discovered n/w topo.(Di)|
| |<--------------------------|
| | |
| | <Compare the discovered |
| | & offered n/w topology>|
| | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Legend:
NB: Northbound
SB: Southbound
OF: OpenFlow
Tm1: Time of reception of first LLDP message from controller
Tmn: Time of last LLDP message sent to controller
Discussion:
The Network Topology Discovery Time can be obtained by calculating
the time difference between the first PACKET_OUT with LLDP message
received from the controller (Tm1) and the last PACKET_IN with
LLDP message sent to the controller (Tmn) when the comparison is
successful.
11.4.2 Asynchronous Message Processing Time
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Controller Application
| | |
|PACKET_IN with single | |
|OFP match header | |
(T0)|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with single OFP | |
| action header | |
(R0)|<---------------------------| |
| . | |
| . | |
| . | |
| | |
|PACKET_IN with single OFP | |
|match header | |
(Tn)|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with single OFP | |
| action header| |
(Rn)|<---------------------------| |
| | |
|<Wait for the expiry of | |
|Test Duration> | |
| | |
|<Record the number of | |
|PACKET_INs/PACKET_OUTs | |
|Exchanged (Nrx)> | |
| | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Legend:
T0,T1, ..Tn are PACKET_IN messages transmit timestamps.
R0,R1, ..Rn are PACKET_OUT messages receive timestamps.
Nrx : Number of successful PACKET_IN/PACKET_OUT message exchanges
Discussion:
The Asynchronous Message Processing Time will be obtained by
sum of ((R0-T0),(R1-T1)..(Rn - Tn))/ Nrx.
11.4.3 Asynchronous Message Processing Rate
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Controller Application
| | |
|PACKET_IN with multiple OFP | |
|match headers | |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with multiple | |
| OFP action headers| |
|<---------------------------| |
| | |
|PACKET_IN with multiple OFP | |
|match headers | |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with multiple | |
| OFP action headers| |
|<---------------------------| |
| . | |
| . | |
| . | |
| | |
|PACKET_IN with multiple OFP | |
|match headers | |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with multiple | |
| OFP action headers| |
|<---------------------------| |
| | |
|<Wait for the expiry of | |
|Test Duration> | |
| | |
|<Record the number of OFP | |
(Nrx)|action headers rcvd> | |
| | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Discussion:
The Asynchronous Message Processing Rate will be obtained by
calculating the number of OFP action headers received in all
PACKET_OUT messages during the test duration.
11.4.4 Reactive Path Provisioning Time
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller
| | | |
| |G-ARP (D1) | |
| |--------------------->| |
| | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1) |
| | |------------------>|
| | | |
|Traffic (S1,D1) | |
(Tsf1)|----------------------------------->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1,D1) |
| | |------------------>|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D1) |
| | |<------------------|
| | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1) | |
| (Tdf1)|<---------------------| |
| | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1
Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2
Discussion:
The Reactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding the
time difference between the transmit and receive time of the
traffic (Tsf1-Tdf1).
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.4.5 Proactive Path Provisioning Time
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1) | | |
| |-------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1) | |
| | |--------------->| |
| | | | |
|Traffic (S1,D1) | | |
(Tsf1)|---------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | | | <Install flow|
| | | | for S1,D1> |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | |
| | |<---------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1)| | |
| (Tdf1)|<--------------| | |
| | | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1
Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2
Discussion:
The Proactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding
the time difference between the transmit and receive time of the
traffic (Tsf1-Tdf1).
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.4.6 Reactive Path Provisioning Rate
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | |
| |--------------------| |
| | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn) |
| | |--------------------->|
| | | |
|Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | |
|--------------------------------->| |
| | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1.Sn,D1.Dn)|
| | |--------------------->|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(S1) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D1) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(S2) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D2) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | . |
| | | . |
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(Sn) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(Dn) |
| | |<---------------------|
| | | |
| | Traffic (S1..Sn, | |
| | D1..Dn)| |
| |<-------------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ....
Destination Endpoint n
S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 .., Source Endpoint n
Discussion:
The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding the
total number of frames received at TP2 after the test duration.
11.4.7 Proactive Path Provisioning Rate
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | |
| |-------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1.Dn)| |
| | |--------------->| |
| | | | |
|Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | |
(Tsf1)|---------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | | | <Install flow|
| | | | for S1,D1> |
| | | | |
| | | | . |
| | | | <Install flow|
| | | | for Sn,Dn> |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(S1) | |
| | |<---------------| |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D1) | |
| | |<---------------| |
| | | | |
| | | . | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(Sn) | |
| | |<---------------| |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(Dn) | |
| | |<---------------| |
| | | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| |Traffic (S1.Sn,| | |
| | D1.Dn)| | |
| (Tdf1)|<--------------| | |
| | | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ....
Destination Endpoint n
S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 .., Source Endpoint n
Discussion:
The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding
the total number of frames received at TP2 after the test duration
11.4.8 Network Topology Change Detection Time
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Controller Application
| | |
| | <Bring down a link in |
| | switch S1>|
| | |
T0 |PORT_STATUS with link down | |
| from S1 | |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
|First PACKET_OUT with LLDP | |
|to OF Switch | |
T1 |<---------------------------| |
| | |
| | <Record time of 1st |
| | PACKET_OUT with LLDP T1>|
Discussion:
The Network Topology Change Detection Time can be obtained by
finding the difference between the time the OpenFlow switch S1
sends the PORT_STATUS message (T0) and the time that the OpenFlow
controller sends the first topology re-discovery message (T1) to
OpenFlow switches.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.5 Scalability
11.5.1 Control Sessions Capacity
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow
Controller
| |
| OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 1 |
|<------------------------------------->|
| |
| OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 2 |
|<------------------------------------->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
| OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch n |
|X<----------------------------------->X|
| |
Discussion:
The value of Switch n-1 will provide Control Sessions Capacity.
11.5.2 Network Discovery Size
Procedure:
SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Controller Application
| | |
| | <Deploy network with |
| |given no. of OF switches N>|
| | |
| OFPT_HELLO Exchange | |
|<-------------------------->| |
| | |
| PACKET_OUT with LLDP | |
| to all switches | |
|<---------------------------| |
| | |
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-1| |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-2| |
|--------------------------->| |
| . | |
| . | |
| | |
| PACKET_IN with LLDP| |
| rcvd from switch-n| |
|--------------------------->| |
| | |
| | <Wait for the expiry |
| | of Test Duration (Td)>|
| | |
| | Query the controller for|
| | discovered n/w topo.(N1)|
| |<--------------------------|
| | |
| | <If N1==N repeat Step 1 |
| |with N+1 nodes until N1<N >|
| | |
| | <If N1<N repeat Step 1 |
| | with N=N1 nodes once and |
| | exit> |
| | |
Legend:
n/w topo: Network Topology
OF: OpenFlow
Discussion:
The value of N1 provides the Network Discovery Size value. The
test duration can be set to the stipulated time within which the
user expects the controller to complete the discovery process.
11.5.3 Forwarding Table Capacity
Procedure:
Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Controller Application
| | | |
| | | |
|G-ARP (H1..Hn) | | |
Step 1 |----------------->| | |
| | | |
| |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn) | |
| |------------------>| |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| | | |
Step 2 | | |<Wait for 5 secs>|
| | | |
| | | <Query for FWD |
| | | entry> |(F1)
| | | |
| | |<Wait for 5 secs>|
| | | |
| | | <Query for FWD |
| | | entry> |(F2)
| | | |
| | |<Wait for 5 secs>|
| | | |
| | | <Query for FWD |
| | | entry> |(F3)
| | | |
| | | <Repeat Step 2 |
| | |until F1==F2==F3>|
| | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
H1..Hn: Host 1 .. Host n
FWD: Forwarding Table
Discussion:
Query the controller forwarding table entries for multiple times
until the three consecutive queries return the same value. The
last value retrieved from the controller will provide the
Forwarding Table Capacity value. The query interval is user
configurable. The 5 seconds shown in this example is for
representational purpose.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.6 Security
11.6.1 Exception Handling
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | |
| |------------------>| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
Step 1|Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | |
|----------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1..Sa,| |
| | | D1..Da)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(Sa+1.. | |
| | |.Sn,Da+1..Dn) | |
| | |(1% incorrect OFP| |
| | | Match header)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn)| |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sa)| |
| | | OFP headers| |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1..Sa, | | |
| | D1..Da)| | |
| |<------------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | | <Wait for |
| | | | Test |
| | | | Duration>|
| | | | |
| | | | <Record Rx|
| | | | frames at|
| | | | TP2 (Rn1)>|
| | | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| | | | <Repeat |
| | | | Step1 with |
| | | |2% incorrect|
| | | | PACKET_INs>|
| | | | |
| | | | <Record Rx|
| | | | frames at|
| | | | TP2 (Rn2)>|
| | | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
PACKET_IN(Sa+1..Sn,Da+1..Dn): OpenFlow PACKET_IN with wrong
version number
Rn1: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 with
1% incorrect frames
Rn2: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 with
2% incorrect frames
Discussion:
The traffic rate sent towards OpenFlow switch from Test Port 1
should be 1% higher than the Path Programming Rate. Rn1 will
provide the Path Provisioning Rate of controller at 1% of
incorrect frames handling and Rn2 will provide the Path
Provisioning Rate of controller at 2% of incorrect frames
handling.
The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the
effect of handling error packets on Path Programming Rate. Same
procedure can be adopted to determine the effects on other
performance tests listed in this benchmarking tests.
11.6.2 Denial of Service Handling
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1..Dn) | | |
| |------------------>| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 40]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
|Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn) | | |
|----------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1..Sn,| |
| | | D1..Dn)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |TCP SYN Attack | |
| | |from a switch | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| | | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sn)| |
| | | OFP headers| |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1..Sn, | | |
| | D1..Dn)| | |
| |<------------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | | <Wait for |
| | | | Test |
| | | | Duration>|
| | | | |
| | | | <Record Rx|
| | | | frames at|
| | | | TP2 (Rn1)>|
| | | | |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
Discussion:
TCP SYN attack should be launched from one of the
emulated/simulated OpenFlow Switch. Rn1 provides the Path
Programming Rate of controller uponhandling denial of service
attack.
The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the
effect of handling denial of service on Path Programming Rate.
Same procedure can be adopted to determine the effects on other
performance tests listed in this benchmarking tests.
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 41]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
11.7 Reliability
11.7.1 Controller Failover Time
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1) | | |
| |------------>| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
Step 1|Traffic (S1..Sn,D1) | | |
|-------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1,D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1)| | |
| |<------------| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S2,D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(S2) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(Sn-1,D1)| |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(Sn,D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | . | |
| | | . |<Bring down the|
| | | . |active control-|
| | | | ler> |
| | | FLOW_MOD(Sn-1) | |
| | | <-X----------| |
| | | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 42]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| | |FLOW_MOD(Sn) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (Sn,D1)| | |
| |<------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | |<Stop the test |
| | | |after recv. |
| | | |traffic upon |
| | | | failure> |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP.
Discussion:
The time difference between the last valid frame received before
the traffic loss and the first frame received after the traffic
loss will provide the controller failover time.
If there is no frame loss during controller failover time, the
controller failover time can be deemed negligible.
11.7.2 Network Re-Provisioning Time
Procedure:
Test Traffic Test Traffic SDN Nodes OpenFlow SDN
Generator TP1 Generator TP2 Controller Application
| | | | |
| |G-ARP (D1) | | |
| |-------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| G-ARP (S1) | | |
|---------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
|Traffic (S1,D1,Seq.no (1..n))| | |
|---------------------------->| | |
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(S1,D1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (D1,S1,| | |
| | Seq.no (1..n))| | |
| |-------------->| | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 43]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| | | | |
| | |PACKET_IN(D1,S1) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1,| | |
| | Seq.no(1))| | |
| |<--------------| | |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1,| | |
| | Seq.no(2))| | |
| |<--------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(1))| | |
|<----------------------------| | |
| | | | |
| Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(2))| | |
|<----------------------------| | |
| | | | |
| Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(x))| | |
|<----------------------------| | |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1,| | |
| | Seq.no(x))| | |
| |<--------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | <Bring down |
| | | | the switch in|
| | | |active traffic|
| | | | path> |
| | | | |
| | |PORT_STATUS(Sa) | |
| | |---------------->| |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1,| | |
| | Seq.no(n-1))| | |
| | X<-----------| | |
| | | | |
| Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(n-1))| | |
| X------------------------| | |
| | | | |
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 44]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(D1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| | |FLOW_MOD(S1) | |
| | |<----------------| |
| | | | |
| Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(n))| | |
|<----------------------------| | |
| | | | |
| |Traffic (S1,D1,| | |
| | Seq.no(n))| | |
| |<--------------| | |
| | | | |
| | | |<Stop the test|
| | | | after recv. |
| | | | traffic upon|
| | | | failover> |
Legend:
G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
Seq.no: Sequence number.
Sa: Neighbour switch of the switch that was brought down.
Discussion:
The time difference between the last valid frame received before
the traffic loss (Packet number with sequence number x) and the
first frame received after the traffic loss (packet with sequence
number n) will provide the network path re-provisioning time.
Note that the test is valid only when the controller provisions
the alternate path upon network failure.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for
providing their valuable comments to the earlier versions of this
document: Al Morton (AT&T), Sandeep Gangadharan (HP),
M. Georgescu (NAIST), Andrew McGregor (Google),
Scott Bradner (Harvard University), Jay Karthik (Cisco),
Ramakrishnan (Brocade).
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 45]
Internet Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology July 2015
13. Authors' Addresses
Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
Veryx Technologies Inc.
1 International Plaza, Suite 550
Philadelphia
PA 19113
Email: bhuvaneswaran.vengainathan@veryxtech.com
Anton Basil
Veryx Technologies Inc.
1 International Plaza, Suite 550
Philadelphia
PA 19113
Email: anton.basil@veryxtech.com
Mark Tassinari
Hewlett-Packard,
8000 Foothills Blvd,
Roseville, CA 95747
Email: mark.tassinari@hp.com
Vishwas Manral
Ionos Corp,
4100 Moorpark Ave,
San Jose, CA
Email: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com
Sarah Banks
VSS Monitoring
930 De Guigne Drive,
Sunnyvale, CA
Email: sbanks@encrypted.net
Bhuvan, et al. Expires January 18, 2016 [Page 46]
