Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
Network Working Group B. Constantine
Internet Draft JDSU
Intended status: Informational R. Krishnan
Expires: February 2016 Dell Inc.
June 9, 2015
Traffic Management Benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-06.txt
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 9, 2015.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Abstract
This framework describes a practical methodology for benchmarking the
traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing,
shaping, etc.). The goal is to provide a repeatable test method that
objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management
capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management
with representative application traffic.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. Traffic Management Overview...............................4
1.2. DUT Lab Configuration and Testing Overview................5
2. Conventions used in this document..............................7
3. Scope and Goals................................................8
4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics...................................9
4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests......................10
4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests.......................11
5. Tester Capabilities...........................................12
5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation........................13
5.1.1. Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic...................13
5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation.........................13
5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions........................15
6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology..............................16
6.1. Policing Tests...........................................16
6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests................................17
6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests..............................18
6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port..........19
6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports..............20
6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports............21
6.2. Queue/Scheduler Tests....................................21
6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests........................21
6.2.1.1 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic....21
6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic.....23
6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests......................25
6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active..............25
6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port..................26
6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ).....26
6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active..........27
6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active........27
6.3. Shaper tests.............................................28
6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests...............................28
6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic.............29
6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic..............30
6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests.................................32
6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active....32
6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active.............32
6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active...............33
6.4. Concurrent Capacity Load Tests...........................34
7. Security Considerations.......................................34
8. IANA Considerations...........................................34
9. References....................................................35
9.1. Normative References.....................................35
9.2. Informative References...................................35
Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing.....36
Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns...........................37
Acknowledgments..................................................41
Authors' Addresses...............................................42
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
1. Introduction
Traffic management (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.) is an increasingly
important component when implementing network Quality of Service
(QoS).
There is currently no framework to benchmark these features
although some standards address specific areas which are described
in Section 1.1.
This draft provides a framework to conduct repeatable traffic
management benchmarks for devices and systems in a lab environment.
Specifically, this framework defines the methods to characterize
the capacity of the following traffic management features in network
devices; classification, policing, queuing / scheduling, and
traffic shaping.
This benchmarking framework can also be used as a test procedure to
assist in the tuning of traffic management parameters before service
activation. In addition to Layer 2/3 (Ethernet / IP) benchmarking,
Layer 4 (TCP) test patterns are proposed by this draft in order to
more realistically benchmark end-user traffic.
1.1. Traffic Management Overview
In general, a device with traffic management capabilities performs
the following functions:
- Traffic classification: identifies traffic according to various
configuration rules (for example IEEE 802.1Q Virtual LAN (VLAN),
Differential Services Code Point (DSCP) etc.) and marks this traffic
internally to the network device. Multiple external priorities
(DSCP, 802.1p, etc.) can map to the same priority in the device.
- Traffic policing: limits the rate of traffic that enters a network
device according to the traffic classification. If the traffic
exceeds the provisioned limits, the traffic is either dropped or
remarked and forwarded onto to the next network device
- Traffic Scheduling: provides traffic classification within the
network device by directing packets to various types of queues and
applies a dispatching algorithm to assign the forwarding sequence
of packets
- Traffic shaping: a traffic control technique that actively buffers
and smooths the output rate in an attempt to adapt bursty traffic
to the configured limits
- Active Queue Management (AQM): AQM involves monitoring the status
of internal queues and proactively dropping (or remarking) packets,
which causes hosts using congestion-aware protocols to back-off and
in turn alleviate queue congestion [AQM-RECO]. On the other hand,
classic traffic management techniques reactively drop (or remark)
packets based on queue full condition. The benchmarking scenarios
for AQM are different and is outside of the scope of this testing
framework.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Even though AQM is outside of scope of this framework, it should be
noted that the TCP metrics and TCP test patterns (defined in Sections
4.2 and 5.2, respectively) could be useful to test new AQM
algorithms (targeted to alleviate buffer bloat). Examples of these
algorithms include code1 and pie (draft-ietf-aqm-code1 and
draft-ietf-aqm-pie).
The following diagram is a generic model of the traffic management
capabilities within a network device. It is not intended to
represent all variations of manufacturer traffic management
capabilities, but provide context to this test framework.
|----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------|
| | | | | | | |
|Interface | |Ingress Actions | |Egress Actions| |Interface |
|Input | |(classification,| |(scheduling, | |Output |
|Queues | | marking, | | shaping, | |Queues |
| |-->| policing or |-->| active queue |-->| |
| | | shaping) | | management | | |
| | | | | remarking) | | |
|----------| |----------------| |--------------| |----------|
Figure 1: Generic Traffic Management capabilities of a Network Device
Ingress actions such as classification are defined in [RFC4689]
and include IP addresses, port numbers, DSCP, etc. In terms of
marking, [RFC2697] and [RFC2698] define a single rate and dual rate,
three color marker, respectively.
The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) specifies policing and shaping in
terms of Ingress and Egress Subscriber/Provider Conditioning
Functions in MEF12.1 [MEF-12.1]; Ingress and Bandwidth Profile
attributes in MEF10.2 [MEF-10.2] and MEF 26 [MEF-26].
1.2 Lab Configuration and Testing Overview
The following is the description of the lab set-up for the traffic
management tests:
+--------------+ +-------+ +----------+ +-----------+
| Transmitting | | | | | | Receiving |
| Test Host | | | | | | Test Host |
| |-----| Device|---->| Network |--->| |
| | | Under | | Delay | | |
| | | Test | | Emulator | | |
| |<----| |<----| |<---| |
| | | | | | | |
+--------------+ +-------+ +----------+ +-----------+
As shown in the test diagram, the framework supports uni-directional
and bi-directional traffic management tests (where the transmitting
and receiving roles would be reversed on the return path).
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
This testing framework describes the tests and metrics for each of
the following traffic management functions:
- Classification
- Policing
- Queuing / Scheduling
- Shaping
The tests are divided into individual and rated capacity tests.
The individual tests are intended to benchmark the traffic management
functions according to the metrics defined in Section 4. The
capacity tests verify traffic management functions under the load of
many simultaneous individual tests and their flows.
This involves concurrent testing of multiple interfaces with the
specific traffic management function enabled, and increasing load to
the capacity limit of each interface.
As an example: a device is specified to be capable of shaping on all
of its egress ports. The individual test would first be conducted to
benchmark the specified shaping function against the metrics defined
in section 4. Then the capacity test would be executed to test the
shaping function concurrently on all interfaces and with maximum
traffic load.
The Network Delay Emulator (NDE) is required for TCP stateful tests
in order to allow TCP to utilize a significant size TCP window in its
control loop.
Also note that the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) SHOULD be passive in
nature such as a fiber spool. This is recommended to eliminate the
potential effects that an active delay element (i.e. test impairment
generator) may have on the test flows. In the case where a fiber
spool is not practical due to the desired latency, an active NDE MUST
be independently verified to be capable of adding the configured
delay without loss. In other words, the DUT would be removed and the
NDE performance benchmarked independently.
Note that the NDE SHOULD be used only as emulated delay. Most NDEs
allow for per flow delay actions, emulating QoS prioritization. For
this framework, the NDE's sole purpose is simply to add delay to all
packets (emulate network latency). So to benchmark the performance of
the NDE, maximum offered load should be tested against the following
frame sizes: 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1500,and 9600 bytes. The delay
accuracy at each of these packet sizes can then be used to calibrate
the range of expected Bandwidth Delay Product (BDP) for the TCP
stateful tests.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
2. 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 [RFC2119].
The following acronyms are used:
AQM: Active Queue Management
BB: Bottleneck Bandwidth
BDP: Bandwidth Delay Product
BSA: Burst Size Achieved
CBS: Committed Burst Size
CIR: Committed Information Rate
DUT: Device Under Test
EBS: Excess Burst Size
EIR: Excess Information Rate
NDE: Network Delay Emulator
SP: Strict Priority Queuing
QL: Queue Length
QoS: Quality of Service
RTH: Receiving Test Host
RTT: Round Trip Time
SBB: Shaper Burst Bytes
SBI: Shaper Burst Interval
SR: Shaper Rate
SSB: Send Socket Buffer
Tc: CBS Time Interval
Te: EBS Time Interval
Ti Transmission Interval
TTH: Transmitting Test Host
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
TTP: TCP Test Pattern
TTPET: TCP Test Pattern Execution Time
3. Scope and Goals
The scope of this work is to develop a framework for benchmarking and
testing the traffic management capabilities of network devices in the
lab environment. These network devices may include but are not
limited to:
- Switches (including Layer 2/3 devices)
- Routers
- Firewalls
- General Layer 4-7 appliances (Proxies, WAN Accelerators, etc.)
Essentially, any network device that performs traffic management as
defined in section 1.1 can be benchmarked or tested with this
framework.
The primary goal is to assess the maximum forwarding performance
deemed to be within the provisioned traffic limits that a network
device can sustain without dropping or impairing packets, or
compromising the accuracy of multiple instances of traffic
management functions. This is the benchmark for comparison between
devices.
Within this framework, the metrics are defined for each traffic
management test but do not include pass / fail criterion, which is
not within the charter of BMWG. This framework provides the test
methods and metrics to conduct repeatable testing, which will
provide the means to compare measured performance between DUTs.
As mentioned in section 1.2, these methods describe the individual
tests and metrics for several management functions. It is also within
scope that this framework will benchmark each function in terms of
overall rated capacity. This involves concurrent testing of multiple
interfaces with the specific traffic management function enabled, up
to the capacity limit of each interface.
It is not within scope of this framework to specify the procedure for
testing multiple configurations of traffic management functions
concurrently. The multitudes of possible combinations is almost
unbounded and the ability to identify functional "break points"
would be almost impossible.
However, section 6.4 provides suggestions for some profiles of
concurrent functions that would be useful to benchmark. The key
requirement for any concurrent test function is that tests MUST
produce reliable and repeatable results.
Also, it is not within scope to perform conformance testing. Tests
defined in this framework benchmark the traffic management functions
according to the metrics defined in section 4 and do not address any
conformance to standards related to traffic management.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
The current specifications don't specify exact behavior or
implementation and the specifications that do exist (cited in
Section 1.1) allow implementations to vary w.r.t. short term rate
accuracy and other factors. This is a primary driver for this
framework: to provide an objective means to compare vendor traffic
management functions.
Another goal is to devise methods that utilize flows with
congestion-aware transport (TCP) as part of the traffic load and
still produce repeatable results in the isolated test environment.
This framework will derive stateful test patterns (TCP or
application layer) that can also be used to further benchmark the
performance of applicable traffic management techniques such as
queuing / scheduling and traffic shaping. In cases where the
network device is stateful in nature (i.e. firewall, etc.),
stateful test pattern traffic is important to test along with
stateless, UDP traffic in specific test scenarios (i.e.
applications using TCP transport and UDP VoIP, etc.).
As mentioned earlier in the document, repeatability of test results
is critical, especially considering the nature of stateful TCP
traffic. To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns
to emulate applications. This framework also provides guidelines
for application modeling and open source tools to achieve the
repeatable stimulus. And finally, TCP metrics from [RFC6349] MUST
be measured for each stateful test and provide the means to compare
each repeated test.
Even though the scope is targeted to TCP applications (i.e. Web,
Email, database, etc.), the framework could be applied to SCTP
in terms of test patterns. WebRTC, SS7 signaling, and 3gpp are
SCTP-based applications that could be modeled with this
framework to benchmark SCTP's effect on traffic management
performance.
Also note that currently, this framework does not address tcpcrypt
(encrypted TCP) test patterns, although the metrics defined in
Section 4.2 can still be used since the metrics are based on TCP
retransmission and RTT measurements (versus any of the payload).
Thus if tcpcrypt becomes popular, it would be natural for
benchmarkers to consider encrypted TCP patterns and include them
in test cases.
4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics
The metrics to be measured during the benchmarks are divided into two
(2) sections: packet layer metrics used for the stateless traffic
testing and TCP layer metrics used for the stateful traffic
testing.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests
Stateless traffic measurements require that sequence number and
time-stamp be inserted into the payload for lost packet analysis.
Delay analysis may be achieved by insertion of timestamps directly
into the packets or timestamps stored elsewhere (packet captures).
This framework does not specify the packet format to carry sequence
number or timing information.
However,[RFC4737] and [RFC4689] provide recommendations
for sequence tracking along with definitions of in-sequence and
out-of-order packets.
The following are the metrics that MUST be measured during the
stateless traffic benchmarking components of the tests:
- Burst Size Achieved (BSA): for the traffic policing and network
queue tests, the tester will be configured to send bursts to test
either the Committed Burst Size (CBS) or Excess Burst Size (EBS) of
a policer or the queue / buffer size configured in the DUT. The
Burst Size Achieved metric is a measure of the actual burst size
received at the egress port of the DUT with no lost packets. As an
example, the configured CBS of a DUT is 64KB and after the burst
test, only a 63 KB can be achieved without packet loss. Then 63KB is
the BSA. Also, the average Packet Delay Variation (PDV see below) as
experienced by the packets sent at the BSA burst size should be
recorded. This metric shall be reported in units of bytes, KBytes,
or MBytes.
- Lost Packets(LP): For all traffic management tests, the tester will
transmit the test packets into the DUT ingress port and the number of
packets received at the egress port will be measured. The difference
between packets transmitted into the ingress port and received at the
egress port is the number of lost packets as measured at the egress
port. These packets must have unique identifiers such that only the
test packets are measured. For cases where multiple flows are
transmitted from ingress to egress port (e.g. IP conversations), each
flow must have sequence numbers within the test packets stream.
[RFC6703] and [RFC2680] describe the need to establish the
time threshold to wait before a packet is declared as lost, and this
threshold MUST be reported with the results. This metric shall be
reported as an integer number which cannot be negative. (see:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6703#section-4.1)
- Out of Order (OOO): in additions to the LP metric, the test
packets must be monitored for sequence. [RFC4689] defines the
general function of sequence tracking, as well as definitions
for in-sequence and out-of-order packets. Out-of-order packets
will be counted per [RFC4737]. This metric shall be reported as
an integer number which cannot be negative.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
- Packet Delay (PD): the Packet Delay metric is the difference
between the timestamp of the received egress port packets and the
packets transmitted into the ingress port and specified in [RFC1242].
The transmitting host and receiving host time must be in
time sync using NTP , GPS, etc. This metric SHALL be reported as a
real number of seconds, where a negative measurement usually
indicates a time synchronization problem between test devices.
- Packet Delay Variation (PDV): the Packet Delay Variation metric is
the variation between the timestamp of the received egress port
packets and specified in [RFC5481]. Note that per [RFC5481],
this PDV is the variation of one-way delay across many packets in
the traffic flow. Per the measurement formula in [RFC5481], select
the high percentile of 99% and units of measure will be a real
number of seconds (negative is not possible for PDV and would
indicate a measurement error).
- Shaper Rate (SR): The SR represents the average DUT output
rate (bps) over the test interval. The Shaper Rate is only
applicable to the traffic shaping tests.
- Shaper Burst Bytes (SBB): A traffic shaper will emit packets in
different size "trains"; these are frames "back-to-back", respect
the mandatory inter-frame gap. This metric characterizes the method
by which the shaper emits traffic. Some shapers transmit larger
bursts per interval, and a burst of 1 packet would apply to the
extreme case of a shaper sending a CBR stream of single packets.
This metric SHALL be reported in units of bytes, KBytes, or MBytes.
Shaper Burst Bytes is only applicable to thetraffic shaping tests.
- Shaper Burst Interval(SBI): the SBI is the time between shaper
emitted bursts and is measured at the DUT egress port. This metric
shall be reported as an real number of seconds. Shaper Burst
Interval is only applicable to the traffic shaping tests,
4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests
The stateful metrics will be based on [RFC6349] TCP metrics and
MUST include:
- TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET): [RFC6349] defined the TCP
Transfer Time for bulk transfers, which is simply the measured time
to transfer bytes across single or concurrent TCP connections. The
TCP test patterns used in traffic management tests will include bulk
transfer and interactive applications. The interactive patterns
include instances such as HTTP business applications, database
applications, etc. The TTPET will be the measure of the time for a
single execution of a TCP Test Pattern (TTP). Average, minimum, and
maximum times will be measured or calculated and expressed as a real
number of seconds.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
An example would be an interactive HTTP TTP session which should take
5 seconds on a GigE network with 0.5 millisecond latency. During ten
(10) executions of this TTP, the TTPET results might be: average of
6.5 seconds, minimum of 5.0 seconds, and maximum of 7.9 seconds.
- TCP Efficiency: after the execution of the TCP Test Pattern, TCP
Efficiency represents the percentage of Bytes that were not
retransmitted.
Transmitted Bytes - Retransmitted Bytes
TCP Efficiency % = --------------------------------------- X 100
Transmitted Bytes
Transmitted Bytes are the total number of TCP Bytes to be transmitted
including the original and the retransmitted Bytes. These
retransmitted bytes should be recorded from the sender's TCP/IP stack
perspective, to avoid any misinterpretation that a reordered packet
is a retransmitted packet (as may be the case with packet decode
interpretation).
- Buffer Delay: represents the increase in RTT during a TCP test
versus the baseline DUT RTT (non congested, inherent latency). RTT
and the technique to measure RTT (average versus baseline) are
defined in [RFC6349]. Referencing [RFC6349], the average RTT is
derived from the total of all measured RTTs during the actual test
sampled at every second divided by the test duration in seconds.
Total RTTs during transfer
Average RTT during transfer = -----------------------------
Transfer duration in seconds
Average RTT during Transfer - Baseline RTT
Buffer Delay % = ------------------------------------------ X 100
Baseline RTT
Note that even though this was not explicitly stated in [RFC6349],
retransmitted packets should not be used in RTT measurements.
Also, the test results should record the average RTT in millisecond
across the entire test duration and number of samples.
5. Tester Capabilities
The testing capabilities of the traffic management test environment
are divided into two (2) sections: stateless traffic testing and
stateful traffic testing
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation
The test device MUST be capable of generating traffic at up to the
link speed of the DUT. The test device must be calibrated to verify
that it will not drop any packets. The test device's inherent PD and
PDV must also be calibrated and subtracted from the PD and PDV
metrics. The test device must support the encapsulation to be
tested such as IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.1ad Q-in-Q, Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS), etc. Also, the test device must allow
control of the classification techniques defined in [RFC4689]
(i.e. IP address, DSCP, TOS, etc classification).
The open source tool "iperf" can be used to generate stateless UDP
traffic and is discussed in Appendix A. Since iperf is a software
based tool, there will be performance limitations at higher link
speeds (e.g. GigE, 10 GigE, etc.). Careful calibration of any test
environment using iperf is important. At higher link speeds, it is
recommended to use hardware based packet test equipment.
5.1.1 Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic
A central theme for the traffic management tests is to benchmark the
specified burst parameter of traffic management function, since burst
parameters of SLAs are specified in bytes. For testing efficiency,
it is recommended to include a burst hunt feature, which automates
the manual process of determining the maximum burst size which can
be supported by a traffic management function.
The burst hunt algorithm should start at the target burst size
(maximum burst size supported by the traffic management function)
and will send single bursts until it can determine the largest burst
that can pass without loss. If the target burst size passes, then
the test is complete. The hunt aspect occurs when the target burst
size is not achieved; the algorithm will drop down to a configured
minimum burst size and incrementally increase the burst until the
maximum burst supported by the DUT is discovered. The recommended
granularity of the incremental burst size increase is 1 KB.
Optionally for a policer function and if the burst size passes, the
burst should be increased by increments of 1 KB to verify that the
policer is truly configured properly (or enabled at all).
5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation
The TCP test host will have many of the same attributes as the TCP
test host defined in [RFC6349]. The TCP test device may be a
standard computer or a dedicated communications test instrument. In
both cases, it must be capable of emulating both a client and a
server.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
For any test using stateful TCP test traffic, the Network Delay
Emulator (NDE function from the lab set-up diagram) must be used in
order to provide a meaningful BDP. As referenced in section 2, the
target traffic rate and configured RTT MUST be verified independently
using just the NDE for all stateful tests (to ensure the NDE can
delay without loss).
The TCP test host MUST be capable to generate and receive stateful
TCP test traffic at the full link speed of the DUT. As a general
rule of thumb, testing TCP Throughput at rates greater than 500 Mbps
may require high performance server hardware or dedicated hardware
based test tools.
The TCP test host MUST allow adjusting both Send and Receive Socket
Buffer sizes. The Socket Buffers must be large enough to fill the
BDP for bulk transfer TCP test application traffic.
Measuring RTT and retransmissions per connection will generally
require a dedicated communications test instrument. In the absence of
dedicated hardware based test tools, these measurements may need to
be conducted with packet capture tools, i.e. conduct TCP Throughput
tests and analyze RTT and retransmissions in packet captures.
The TCP implementation used by the test host MUST be specified in
the test results (e.g. TCP New Reno, TCP options supported, etc.).
Additionally, the test results SHALL provide specific congestion
control algorithm details, as per [RFC3148].
While [RFC6349] defined the means to conduct throughput tests of TCP
bulk transfers, the traffic management framework will extend TCP test
execution into interactive TCP application traffic. Examples include
email, HTTP, business applications, etc. This interactive traffic is
bi-directional and can be chatty, meaning many turns in traffic
communication during the course of a transaction (versus the
relatively uni-directional flow of bulk transfer applications).
The test device must not only support bulk TCP transfer application
traffic but MUST also support chatty traffic. A valid stress test
SHOULD include both traffic types. This is due to the non-uniform,
bursty nature of chatty applications versus the relatively uniform
nature of bulk transfers (the bulk transfer smoothly stabilizes to
equilibrium state under lossless conditions).
While iperf is an excellent choice for TCP bulk transfer testing,
the netperf open source tool provides the ability to control the
client and server request / response behavior. The netperf-wrapper
tool is a Python wrapper to run multiple simultaneous netperf
instances and aggregate the results. Appendix A provides an overview
of netperf / netperf-wrapper and another open source application
emulation tools, iperf. As with any software based tool, the
performance must be qualified to the link speed to be tested.
Hardware-based test equipment should be considered for reliable
results at higher links speeds (e.g. 1 GigE, 10 GigE).
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions
As mentioned in the goals of this framework, techniques are defined
to specify TCP traffic test patterns to benchmark traffic
management technique(s) and produce repeatable results. Some
network devices such as firewalls, will not process stateless test
traffic which is another reason why stateful TCP test traffic must
be used.
An application could be fully emulated up to Layer 7, however this
framework proposes that stateful TCP test patterns be used in order
to provide granular and repeatable control for the benchmarks. The
following diagram illustrates a simple Web Browsing application
(HTTP).
GET url
Client ------------------------> Web
Web 200 OK 100ms |
Browser <------------------------ Server
In this example, the Client Web Browser (Client) requests a URL and
then the Web Server delivers the web page content to the Client
(after a Server delay of 100 millisecond). This asynchronous,
"request/response" behavior is intrinsic to most TCP based
applications such as Email (SMTP), File Transfers (FTP and SMB),
Database (SQL), Web Applications (SOAP), REST, etc. The impact to
the network elements is due to the multitudes of Clients and the
variety of bursty traffic, which stresses traffic management
functions. The actual emulation of the specific application
protocols is not required and TCP test patterns can be defined to
mimic the application network traffic flows and produce repeatable
results.
Application modeling techniques have been proposed in
"3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" and provides examples to model the behavior of
HTTP, FTP, and WAP applications at the TCP layer. The models have
been defined with various mathematical distributions for the
Request/Response bytes and inter-request gap times. The model
definition format described in this work are the basis for the
guidelines provides in Appendix B and are also similar to formats
used by network modeling tools. Packet captures can also be used to
characterize application traffic and specify some of the test
patterns listed in Appendix B.
This framework does not specify a fixed set of TCP test patterns, but
does provide test cases that SHOULD be performed in Appendix B. Some
of these examples reflect those specified in "draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-
bench-meth-04" which suggests traffic mixes for a variety of
representative application profiles. Other examples are simply
well-known application traffic types such as HTTP.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology
The traffic benchmarking methodology uses the test set-up from
section 2 and metrics defined in section 4.
Each test SHOULD compare the network device's internal statistics
(available via command line management interface, SNMP, etc.) to the
measured metrics defined in section 4. This evaluates the accuracy
of the internal traffic management counters under individual test
conditions and capacity test conditions that are defined in each
subsection. This comparison is not intended to compare real-time
statistics, but the cumulative statistics reported after the test
has completed and device counters have updated (it is common for
device counters to update after a 10 second or greater interval).
From a device configuration standpoint, scheduling and shaping
functionality can be applied to logical ports such Link Aggregation
(LAG). This would result in the same scheduling and shaping
configuration applied to all the member physical ports. The focus of
this draft is only on tests at a physical port level.
The following sections provide the objective, procedure, metrics, and
reporting format for each test. For all test steps, the following
global parameters must be specified:
Test Runs (Tr). Defines the number of times the test needs to be run
to ensure accurate and repeatable results. The recommended value is
a minimum of 10.
Test Duration (Td). Defines the duration of a test iteration,
expressed in seconds. The recommended minimum value is 60 seconds.
The variability in the test results MUST be measured between Test
Runs and if the variation is characterized as a significant portion
of the measured values, the next step may be to revise the methods to
achieve better consistency.
6.1. Policing Tests
A policer is defined as the entity performing the policy function.
The intent of the policing tests is to verify the policer performance
(i.e. CIR-CBS and EIR-EBS parameters). The tests will verify that the
network device can handle the CIR with CBS and the EIR with EBS and
will use back-back packet testing concepts from [RFC2544] (but
adapted to burst size algorithms and terminology). Also [MEF-14],
[MEF-19], and [MEF-37] provide some basis for specific components of
this test. The burst hunt algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can
also be used to automate the measurement of the CBS value.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
The tests are divided into two (2) sections; individual policer
tests and then full capacity policing tests. It is important to
benchmark the basic functionality of the individual policer then
proceed into the fully rated capacity of the device. This capacity
may include the number of policing policies per device and the
number of policers simultaneously active across all ports.
6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests
Objective:
Test a policer as defined by [RFC4115] or MEF 10.2, depending upon
the equipment's specification. In addition to verifying that the
policer allows the specified CBS and EBS bursts to pass, the policer
test MUST verify that the policer will remark or drop excess, and
pass traffic at the specified CBS/EBS values.
Test Summary:
Policing tests should use stateless traffic. Stateful TCP test
traffic will generally be adversely affected by a policer in the
absence of traffic shaping. So while TCP traffic could be used,
it is more accurate to benchmark a policer with stateless traffic.
As an example for [RFC4115], consider a CBS and EBS of 64KB and CIR
and EIR of 100 Mbps on a 1GigE physical link (in color-blind mode).
A stateless traffic burst of 64KB would be sent into the policer at
the GigE rate. This equates to approximately a 0.512 millisecond
burst time (64 KB at 1 GigE). The traffic generator must space these
bursts to ensure that the aggregate throughput does not exceed the
CIR. The Ti between the bursts would equal CBS * 8 / CIR = 5.12
millisecond in this example.
Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
CBS/EBS values to be tested
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to CBS and an interval equal to Ti (CBS in bits / CIR)
3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into
the policer ingress port and measure the metrics defined in
section 4.1 (BSA, LP. OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress port and
across the entire Td (default 60 seconds duration)
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS
limit traffic into the policer ingress port and verify that the
policer only allowed the BSA bytes to exit the egress. The excess
burst MUST be recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes.
Additional tests beyond the simple color-blind example might
include: color-aware mode, configurations where EIR is greater
than CIR, etc.
Reporting Format:
The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run and a recommended format is as follows:
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: CIR, EIR, CBS, EBS
The results table should contain entries for each test run, (Test #1
to Test #Tr).
Compliant Traffic Test: BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV
Excess Traffic Test: BSA
********************************************************
6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests
Objective:
The intent of the capacity tests is to verify the policer performance
in a scaled environment with multiple ingress customer policers on
multiple physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum number
of active policers as specified by the device manufacturer.
Test Summary:
The specified policing function capacity is generally expressed in
terms of the number of policers active on each individual physical
port as well as the number of unique policer rates that are utilized.
For all of the capacity tests, the benchmarking test procedure and
report format described in Section 6.1.1 for a single policer MUST
be applied to each of the physical port policers.
As an example, a Layer 2 switching device may specify that each of
the 32 physical ports can be policed using a pool of policing service
policies. The device may carry a single customer's traffic on each
physical port and a single policer is instantiated per physical port.
Another possibility is that a single physical port may carry multiple
customers, in which case many customer flows would be policed
concurrently on an individual physical port (separate policers per
customer on an individual port).
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
procedures, and reporting formats for each policer capacity test.
6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port Test
Test Summary:
The first policer capacity test will benchmark a single physical
port, maximum policers on that physical port.
Assume multiple categories of ingress policers at rates r1, r2,...rn.
There are multiple customers on a single physical port. Each customer
could be represented by a single tagged vlan, double tagged vlan,
VPLS instance etc. Each customer is mapped to a different policer.
Each of the policers can be of rates r1, r2,..., rn.
An example configuration would be
- Y1 customers, policer rate r1
- Y2 customers, policer rate r2
- Y3 customers, policer rate r3
...
- Yn customers, policer rate rn
Some bandwidth on the physical port is dedicated for other traffic
non customer traffic); this includes network control protocol
traffic. There is a separate policer for the other traffic. Typical
deployments have 3 categories of policers; there may be some
deployments with more or less than 3 categories of ingress
policers.
Test Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
CBS/EBS values for each policer rate (r1-rn) to be tested
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to CBS and an interval equal to TI (CBS in bits/CIR) for each
customer stream (Y1 - Yn). The encapsulation for each customer
must also be configured according to the service tested (VLAN,
VPLS, IP mapping, etc.).
3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into
the policer ingress port for each customer traffic stream and
measure the metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and
PDV) at the egress port for each stream and across the entire Td
(default 30 seconds duration)
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS
limit traffic into the policer ingress port for each customer
traffic stream and verify that the policer only allowed the BSA
bytes to exit the egress for each stream. The excess burst MUST
recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes.
Reporting Format:
The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run, per customer traffic stream.
A recommended format is as follows:
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
Customer traffic stream Encapsulation: Map each stream to VLAN,
VPLS, IP address
DUT Configuration Summary per Customer Traffic Stream: CIR, EIR,
CBS, EBS
The results table should contain entries for each test run, (Test #1
to Test #Tr).
Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Compliant Traffic Test: BSA, LP,
OOS, PD, and PDV
Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Excess Traffic Test: BSA
********************************************************
Note: For each test run, there will be a two (2) rows for each
customer stream, the compliant traffic result and the excess traffic
result.
6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports
Test Summary:
The second policer capacity test involves a single Policer function
per physical port with all physical ports active. In this test,
there is a single policer per physical port. The policer can have
one of the rates r1, r2,.., rn. All the physical ports in the
networking device are active.
Procedure:
The procedure is identical to 6.1.1, the configured parameters must
be reported per port and the test report must include results per
measured egress port
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports
Finally the third policer capacity test involves a combination of the
first and second capacity test, namely maximum policers active per
physical port and all physical ports are active.
Procedure:
Uses the procedural method from 6.1.2.1 and the configured parameters
must be reported per port and the test report must include per stream
results per measured egress port.
6.2. Queue and Scheduler Tests
Queues and traffic Scheduling are closely related in that a queue's
priority dictates the manner in which the traffic scheduler
transmits packets out of the egress port.
Since device queues / buffers are generally an egress function, this
test framework will discuss testing at the egress (although the
technique can be applied to ingress side queues).
Similar to the policing tests, the tests are divided into two
sections; individual queue/scheduler function tests and then full
capacity tests.
6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests Overview
The various types of scheduling techniques include FIFO, Strict
Priority (SP), Weighted Fair Queueing (WFQ) along with other
variations. This test framework recommends to test at a minimum
of three techniques although it is the discretion of the tester
to benchmark other device scheduling algorithms.
6.2.1.1 Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic Test
Objective:
Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can
handle stateless traffic bursts up to the queue depth.
Test Summary:
A network device queue is memory based unlike a policing function,
which is token or credit based. However, the same concepts from
section 6.1 can be applied to testing network device queues.
The device's network queue should be configured to the desired size
in KB (queue length, QL) and then stateless traffic should be
transmitted to test this QL.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
A queue should be able to handle repetitive bursts with the
transmission gaps proportional to the bottleneck bandwidth. This
gap is referred to as the transmission interval (Ti). Ti can
be defined for the traffic bursts and is based off of the QL and
Bottleneck Bandwidth (BB) of the egress interface.
Ti = QL * 8 / BB
Note that this equation is similar to the Ti required for
transmission into a policer (QL = CBS, BB = CIR). Also note that the
burst hunt algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to
automate the measurement of the queue value.
The stateless traffic burst shall be transmitted at the link speed
and spaced within the Ti time interval. The metrics defined in
section 4.1 shall be measured at the egress port and recorded; the
primary result is to verify the BSA and that no packets are dropped.
The scheduling function must also be characterized to benchmark the
device's ability to schedule the queues according to the priority.
An example would be 2 levels of priority including SP and FIFO
queueing. Under a flow load greater the egress port speed, the
higher priority packets should be transmitted without drops (and
also maintain low latency), while the lower priority (or best
effort) queue may be dropped.
Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
(FIFO, SP, etc) parameters
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)
3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the
metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the
egress port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds
duration)
Report Format:
The Queue/Scheduler Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain
all results for each QL/BB test run and a recommended format is as
follows:
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL
The results table should contain entries for each test run
as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr).
- LP, OOS, PD, and PDV
********************************************************
6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic
Objective:
Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can handle
stateful traffic bursts up to the queue depth.
Test Background and Summary:
To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is recommended
for the queue tests. Stateful traffic tests will also utilize the
Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up configuration in
section 2.
The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calibrated to the QL of the
device queue. Referencing [RFC6349], the BDP is equal to:
BB * RTT / 8 (in bytes)
The NDE must be configured to an RTT value which is large enough to
allow the BDP to be greater than QL. An example test scenario is
defined below:
- Ingress link = GigE
- Egress link = 100 Mbps (BB)
- QL = 32KB
RTT(min) = QL * 8 / BB and would equal 2.56 ms (and the BDP = 32KB)
In this example, one (1) TCP connection with window size / SSB of
32KB would be required to test the QL of 32KB. This Bulk Transfer
Test can be accomplished using iperf as described in Appendix A.
Two types of TCP tests MUST be performed: Bulk Transfer test and
Micro Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk
Transfer Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion
Avoidance) state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application
layer bursting which may occur any time during the TCP connection.
Other tests types SHOULD include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also
documented in Appendix B).
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Test Metrics:
The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET),
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
(FIFO, SP, etc) parameters
2. Configure the test generator* with a profile of an emulated
application traffic mixture
- The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
of the total bandwidth to be tested
- The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
MUST be also be configurable
* The test generator MUST be capable of generating precise TCP
test patterns for each application specified, to ensure repeatable
results.
3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure application
throughput the metrics (TTPET, TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay),
per application stream and at the ingress and egress port (across
the entire Td, default 60 seconds duration).
Concerning application measurements, a couple of items require
clarification. An application session may be comprised of a single
TCP connection or multiple TCP connections.
For the single TCP connection application sessions, the application
thoughput / metrics have a 1-1 relationship to the TCP connection
measurements.
If an application session (i.e. HTTP-based application) utilizes
multiple TCP connections, then all of the TCP connections are
aggregated in the application throughput measurement / metrics for
that application.
Then there is the case of mulitlple instances of an application
session (i.e. multiple FTPs emulating multiple clients). In this
situation, the test should measure / record each FTP application
session independently, tabulating the minimum, maximum, and average
for all FTP sessions.
Finally, application throughput measurements are based on Layer 4
TCP throughput and do not include bytes retransmitted. The TCP
Efficiency metric MUST be measured during the test and provides a
measure of "goodput" during each test.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Reporting Format:
The Queue/Scheduler Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain
all results for each traffic scheduler and QL/BB test run and a
recommended format is as follows:
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Scheduling technique, BB and QL
Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured
of each application type
The results table should contain entries for each test run with
minimum, maximum, and average per application session as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr)
- Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
- Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
- Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
********************************************************
6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests
Objective:
The intent of these capacity tests is to benchmark queue/scheduler
performance in a scaled environment with multiple queues/schedulers
active on multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark
the maximum number of queues and schedulers as specified by the
device manufacturer. Each priority in the system will map to a
separate queue.
Test Metrics:
The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
be measured at the egress port and recorded.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
procedures, and reporting formats for each queue / scheduler capacity
test.
6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active
For the first scheduler / queue capacity test, multiple queues per
port will be tested on a single physical port. In this case,
all the queues (typically 8) are active on a single physical port.
Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the
same egress physical port which will cause oversubscription on the
egress physical port.
There are many types of priority schemes and combinations of
priorities that are managed by the scheduler. The following
sections specify the priority schemes that should be tested.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port
Test Summary:
For this test, Strict Priority (SP) scheduling on the egress
physical port should be tested and the benchmarking methodology
specified in section 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics,
and reporting format) should be applied here. For a given
priority, each ingress physical port should get a fair share of
the egress physical port bandwidth.
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report
results format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate
/ mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results:
- For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput
rate and metrics at the egress port
6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ) on Egress Port
Test Summary:
For this test, Strict Priority (SP) and Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ)
should be enabled simultaneously in the scheduler but on a single
egress port. The benchmarking methodology specified in Section
6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format)
should be applied here. Additionally, the egress port bandwidth
sharing among weighted queues should be proportional to the assigned
weights. For a given priority, each ingress physical port should get
a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth.
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results:
- For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput rate
and metrics at each queue of the egress port queue (both the SP
and WFQ queue).
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Example:
- Egress Port SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams
1-n
- Egress Port WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams
1-n
6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active
Test Summary:
Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the
same egress physical port, which will cause oversubscription on the
egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is directed
to each egress physical port.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1
and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) should be
applied here. Each ingress physical port should get a fair share of
the egress physical port bandwidth. Additionally, each egress
physical port should receive the same amount of traffic.
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of ingress ports active during the test
- The number of egress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results:
- For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at
the egress port queue for each ingress port stream.
Example:
- Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active
Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to all
queues of each egress physical port, which will cause
oversubscription on the egress physical ports. Also, the same
amount of traffic is directed to each egress physical port.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1
and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) should be
applied here. For a given priority, each ingress physical port
should get a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth.
Additionally, each egress physical port should receive the same
amount of traffic.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
Report results:
- For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at
each egress port queue for each ingress port stream.
Example:
- Egress Port 1, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
- Egress Port 2, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
.
.
- Egress Port n, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
- Egress Port n, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress
streams 1-n
6.3. Shaper tests
A traffic shaper is memory based like a queue, but with the added
intelligence of an active traffic scheduler. The same concepts from
section 6.2 (Queue testing) can be applied to testing network device
shaper.
Again, the tests are divided into two sections; individual shaper
benchmark tests and then full capacity shaper benchmark tests.
6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests Overview
A traffic shaper generally has three (3) components that can be
configured:
- Ingress Queue bytes
- Shaper Rate, bps
- Burst Committed (Bc) and Burst Excess (Be), bytes
The Ingress Queue holds burst traffic and the shaper then meters
traffic out of the egress port according to the Shaper Rate and
Bc/Be parameters. Shapers generally transmit into policers, so
the idea is for the emitted traffic to conform to the policer's
limits.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic
Objective:
Test a shaper by transmitting stateless traffic bursts into the
shaper ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped
according to the shaper traffic profile.
Test Summary:
The stateless traffic must be burst into the DUT ingress port and
not exceed the Ingress Queue. The burst can be a single burst or
multiple bursts. If multiple bursts are transmitted, then the
Ti (Time interval) must be large enough so that the Shaper Rate is
not exceeded. An example will clarify single and multiple burst
test cases.
In the example, the shaper's ingress and egress ports are both full
duplex Gigabit Ethernet. The Ingress Queue is configured to be
512,000 bytes, the Shaper Rate (SR) = 50 Mbps, and both Bc/Be
configured to be 32,000 bytes. For a single burst test, the
transmitting test device would burst 512,000 bytes maximum into the
ingress port and then stop transmitting.
If a multiple burst test is to be conducted, then the burst bytes
divided by the time interval between the 512,000 byte bursts must
not exceed the Shaper Rate. The time interval (Ti) must adhere to
a similar formula as described in section 6.2.1.1 for queues, namely:
Ti = Ingress Queue x 8 / Shaper Rate
For the example from the previous paragraph, Ti between bursts must
be greater than 82 millisecond (512,000 bytes x 8 / 50,000,000 bps).
This yields an average rate of 50 Mbps so that an Input Queue
would not overflow.
Test Metrics:
- The metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI)
SHALL be measured at the egress port and recorded.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters
2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)
3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the metrics
defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) at the egress
port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration)
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Report Format:
The Shaper Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain all
results for each QL/SR test run and a recommended format is as
follows:
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR
The results table should contain entries for each test run as
follows,(Test #1 to Test #Tr).
- LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI
********************************************************
6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic
Objective:
Test a shaper by transmitting stateful traffic bursts into the shaper
ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped
according to the shaper traffic profile.
Test Summary:
To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is also
recommended for the shaper tests. Stateful traffic tests will also
utilize the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up
configuration in section 2.
The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calculated as described in
section 6.2.2. To properly stress network buffers and the traffic
shaping function, the cumulative TCP window should exceed the BDP
which will stress the shaper. BDP factors of 1.1 to 1.5 are
recommended, but the values are the discretion of the tester and
should be documented.
The cumulative TCP Window Sizes* (RWND at the receiving end & CWND
at the transmitting end) equates to:
TCP window size* for each connection x number of connections
* as described in section 3 of [RFC6349], the SSB MUST be large
enough to fill the BDP
Example, if the BDP is equal to 256 Kbytes and a connection size of
64Kbytes is used for each connection, then it would require four (4)
connections to fill the BDP and 5-6 connections (over subscribe the
BDP) to stress test the traffic shaping function.
Two types of TCP tests MUST be performed: Bulk Transfer test and
Micro Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B. The Bulk
Transfer Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion
Avoidance) state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application
layer bursting which may any time during the TCP connection.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Other tests types SHOULD include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also
documented in Appendix B).
Test Metrics:
The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET),
TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters
2. Configure the test generator* with a profile of an emulated
application traffic mixture
- The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
of the total bandwidth to be tested
- The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
MUST be also be configurable
* The test generator MUST be capable of generating precise TCP
test patterns for each application specified, to ensure repeatable
results.
3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics
(TTPET, TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream
and at the ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default
30 seconds duration).
Reporting Format:
The Shaper Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all
results for each traffic scheduler and QL/SR test run and a
recommended format is as follows:
********************************************************
Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td
DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR
Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured
of each application type
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
The results table should contain entries for each test run with
minimum, maximum, and average per application session as follows,
(Test #1 to Test #Tr)
- Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
- Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
- Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
********************************************************
6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests
Objective:
The intent of these scalability tests is to verify shaper performance
in a scaled environment with shapers active on multiple queues on
multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum
number of shapers as specified by the device manufacturer.
The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
procedures, and reporting formats for each shaper capacity test.
6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active
Test Summary:
The first shaper capacity test involves per port shaping, all
physical ports active. Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports
are directed to the same egress physical port and this will cause
oversubscription on the egress physical port. Also, the same amount
of traffic is directed to each egress physical port.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
- The shaped egress ports shaper parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be)
Report results:
- For each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate and
shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example:
- Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active
Test Summary:
The second shaper capacity test is conducted with all queues actively
shaping on a single physical port. The benchmarking methodology
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
described in per port shaping test (previous section) serves as the
foundation for this. Additionally, each of the SP queues on the
egress physical port is configured with a shaper. For the highest
priority queue, the maximum amount of bandwidth available is limited
by the bandwidth of the shaper. For the lower priority queues, the
maximum amount of bandwidth available is limited by the bandwidth of
the shaper and traffic in higher priority queues.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate/mixture
for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
- For the active egress port, each shaper queue parameters (QL, SR,
Bc, Be)
Report results:
- For each queue of the active egress port, the achieved throughput
rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example:
- Egress Port High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active
Test Summary:
And for the third shaper capacity test (which is a combination of the
tests in the previous two sections),all queues will be actively
shaping and all physical ports active.
The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
6.3.1 MUST also include:
Configuration:
- The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
- The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
ingress port
- The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
- For each of the active egress ports, shaper port and per queue
parameters(QL, SR, Bc, Be)
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Report results:
- For each queue of each active egress port, the achieved throughput
rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream
Example:
- Egress Port 1 High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port 1 Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
.
- Egress Port n High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
- Egress Port n Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for
ingress streams 1-n
6.4 Concurrent Capacity Load Tests
As mentioned in the scope of this document, it is impossible to
specify the various permutations of concurrent traffic management
functions that should be tested in a device for capacity testing.
However, some profiles are listed below which may be useful
to test under capacity as well:
- Policers on ingress and queuing on egress
- Policers on ingress and shapers on egress (not intended for a
flow to be policed then shaped, these would be two different
flows tested at the same time)
- etc.
The test procedures and reporting formatting from the previous
sections may be modified to accommodate the capacity test profile.
7. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of the
Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
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.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not REQUIRE an IANA registration for ports
dedicated to the TCP testing described in this document.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC1242] S. Bradner, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices," RFC1242 July 1991
[RFC2544] S. Bradner, "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices," RFC2544 March 1999
[RFC3148] M. Mathis et al., A Framework for Defining Empirical
Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics," RFC3148 July 2001
[RFC5481] A. Morton et al., "Packet Delay Variation Applicability
Statement," RFC5481 March 2009
[RFC6703] A. Morton et al., "Reporting IP Network Performance
Metrics: Different Points of View." RFC 6703 August 2012
[RFC2680] G. Almes et al., "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,"
RFC2680 September 1999
[RFC4689] S. Poretsky et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking
Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms," RFC4689,
October 2006
[RFC4737] A. Morton et al., "Packet Reordering Metrics," RFC4737,
February 2006
[RFC4115] O. Aboul-Magd et al., "A Differentiated Service Two-Rate,
Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic."
RFC4115 July 2005
[RFC6349] Barry Constantine et al., "Framework for TCP Throughput
Testing," RFC6349, August 2011
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2697] J. Heinanen et al., "A Single Rate Three Color Marker,"
RFC2697, September 1999
[RFC2698] J. Heinanen et al., "A Two Rate Three Color Marker, "
RFC2698, September 1999
[AQM-RECO] Fred Baker et al., "IETF Recommendations Regarding
Active Queue Management," August 2014,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-
recommendation/
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
[MEF-10.2] "MEF 10.2: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2," October
2009, http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/
technical-specifications/MEF10.2.pdf
[MEF-12.1] "MEF 12.1: Carrier Ethernet Network Architecture
Framework --
Part 2: Ethernet Services Layer - Base Elements," April
2010, https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical
_Specifications/PDF/MEF12.1.pdf
[MEF-26] "MEF 26: External Network Network Interface (ENNI) -
Phase 1,"January 2010, http://www.metroethernetforum.org
/PDF_Documents/technical-specifications/MEF26.pdf
[MEF-14] "Abstract Test Suite for Traffic Management Phase 1,
https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets
/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_14.pdf
[MEF-19] "Abstract Test Suite for UNII Type 1",
https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets
/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_19.pdf
[MEF-37] "Abstract Test Suite for ENNI",
https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets
/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_37.pdf
Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing
This framework specifies that stateless and stateful behaviors SHOULD
both be tested. Some open source tools that can be used to
accomplish many of the tests proposed in this framework are:
iperf, netperf (with netperf-wrapper),uperf, TMIX,
TCP-incast-generator, and D-ITG (Distributed Internet Traffic
Generator).
Iperf can generate UDP or TCP based traffic; a client and server must
both run the iperf software in the same traffic mode. The server is
set up to listen and then the test traffic is controlled from the
client. Both uni-directional and bi-directional concurrent testing
are supported.
The UDP mode can be used for the stateless traffic testing. The
target bandwidth, packet size, UDP port, and test duration can be
controlled. A report of bytes transmitted, packets lost, and delay
variation are provided by the iperf receiver.
Iperf (TCP mode), TCP-incast-generator, and D-ITG can be used for
stateful traffic testing to test bulk transfer traffic. The TCP
Window size (which is actually the SSB), the number of connections,
the packet size, TCP port and the test duration can be controlled.
A report of bytes transmitted and throughput achieved are provided
by the iperf sender, while TCP-incast-generator and D-ITG provide
even more statistics.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Netperf is a software application that provides network bandwidth
testing between two hosts on a network. It supports Unix domain
sockets, TCP, SCTP, DLPI and UDP via BSD Sockets. Netperf provides
a number of predefined tests e.g. to measure bulk (unidirectional)
data transfer or request response performance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netperf). Netperf-wrapper is a Python
script that runs multiple simultaneous netperf instances and
aggregate the results.
uperf uses a description (or model) of an application mixture and
the tool generates the load according to the model desciptor. uperf
is more flexible than Netperf in it's ability to generate request
/ response application behavior within a single TCP connection. The
application model descriptor can be based off of empirical data, but
currently the import of packet captures is not directly supported.
Tmix is another application traffic emulation tool and uses packet
captures directly to create the traffic profile. The packet trace is
'reverse compiled' into a source-level characterization, called a
connection vector, of each TCP connection present in the trace. While
most widely used in ns2 simulation environment, TMix also runs on
Linux hosts.
These open source tool's traffic generation capabilities facilitate
the emulation of the TCP test patterns which are discussed in
Appendix B.
Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns
This framework recommends at a minimum the following TCP test
patterns since they are representative of real world application
traffic (section 5.2.1 describes some methods to derive other
application-based TCP test patterns).
- Bulk Transfer: generate concurrent TCP connections whose aggregate
number of in-flight data bytes would fill the BDP. Guidelines
from [RFC6349] are used to create this TCP traffic pattern.
- Micro Burst: generate precise burst patterns within a single or
multiple TCP connections(s). The idea is for TCP to establish
equilibrium and then burst application bytes at defined sizes. The
test tool must allow the burst size and burst time interval to be
configurable.
- Web Site Patterns: The HTTP traffic model from
"3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" is referenced (Table 4.1.3.2.1) to develop
these TCP test patterns. In summary, the HTTP traffic model consists
of the following parameters:
- Main object size (Sm)
- Embedded object size (Se)
- Number of embedded objects per page (Nd)
- Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing time (Tsp)
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Web site test patterns are illustrated with the following examples:
- Simple Web Site: mimic the request / response and object
download behavior of a basic web site (small company).
- Complex Web Site: mimic the request / response and object
download behavior of a complex web site (ecommerce site).
Referencing the HTTP traffic model parameters , the following table
was derived (by analysis and experimentation) for Simple and Complex
Web site TCP test patterns:
Simple Complex
Parameter Web Site Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------
Main object Ave. = 10KB Ave. = 300KB
size (Sm) Min. = 100B Min. = 50KB
Max. = 500KB Max. = 2MB
Embedded object Ave. = 7KB Ave. = 10KB
size (Se) Min. = 50B Min. = 100B
Max. = 350KB Max. = 1MB
Number of embedded Ave. = 5 Ave. = 25
objects per page (Nd) Min. = 2 Min. = 10
Max. = 10 Max. = 50
Client processing Ave. = 3s Ave. = 10s
time (Tcp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 3s
Max. = 10s Max. = 30s
Server processing Ave. = 5s Ave. = 8s
time (Tsp)* Min. = 1s Min. = 2s
Max. = 15s Max. = 30s
* The client and server processing time is distributed across the
transmission / receipt of all of the main and embedded objects
To be clear, the parameters in this table are reasonable guidelines
for the TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use
fixed parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for
more complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to
ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.
- Inter-active Patterns: While Web site patterns are inter-active
to a degree, they mainly emulate the downloading of various
complexity web sites. Inter-active patterns are more chatty in
nature since there is alot of user interaction with the servers.
Examples include business applications such as Peoplesoft, Oracle
and consumer applications such as Facebook, IM, etc. For the inter-
active patterns, the packet capture technique was used to
characterize some business applications and also the email
application.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
In summary, an inter-active application can be described by the
following parameters:
- Client message size (Scm)
- Number of Client messages (Nc)
- Server response size (Srs)
- Number of server messages (Ns)
- Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing Time (Tsp)
- File size upload (Su)*
- File size download (Sd)*
* The file size parameters account for attachments uploaded or
downloaded and may not be present in all inter-active applications
Again using packet capture as a means to characterize, the following
table reflects the guidelines for Simple Business Application,
Complex Business Application, eCommerce, and Email Send / Receive:
Simple Complex
Parameter Biz. App. Biz. App eCommerce* Email
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Client message Ave. = 450B Ave. = 2KB Ave. = 1KB Ave. = 200B
size (Scm) Min. = 100B Min. = 500B Min. = 100B Min. = 100B
Max. = 1.5KB Max. = 100KB Max. = 50KB Max. = 1KB
Number of client Ave. = 10 Ave. = 100 Ave. = 20 Ave. = 10
messages (Nc) Min. = 5 Min. = 50 Min. = 10 Min. = 5
Max. = 25 Max. = 250 Max. = 100 Max. = 25
Client processing Ave. = 10s Ave. = 30s Ave. = 15s Ave. = 5s
time (Tcp)** Min. = 3s Min. = 3s Min. = 5s Min. = 3s
Max. = 30s Max. = 60s Max. = 120s Max. = 45s
Server response Ave. = 2KB Ave. = 5KB Ave. = 8KB Ave. = 200B
size (Srs) Min. = 500B Min. = 1KB Min. = 100B Min. = 150B
Max. = 100KB Max. = 1MB Max. = 50KB Max. = 750B
Number of server Ave. = 50 Ave. = 200 Ave. = 100 Ave. = 15
messages (Ns) Min. = 10 Min. = 25 Min. = 15 Min. = 5
Max. = 200 Max. = 1000 Max. = 500 Max. = 40
Server processing Ave. = 0.5s Ave. = 1s Ave. = 2s Ave. = 4s
time (Tsp)** Min. = 0.1s Min. = 0.5s Min. = 1s Min. = 0.5s
Max. = 5s Max. = 20s Max. = 10s Max. = 15s
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Complex Business Application, eCommerce, and Email Send / Receive
(continued):
Simple Complex
Parameter Biz. App. Biz. App eCommerce* Email
--------------------------------------------------------------------
File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB
upload (Su) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB
Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB
File size Ave. = 50KB Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A Ave. = 100KB
download (Sd) Min. = 2KB Min. = 10KB Min. = N/A Min. = 20KB
Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB Max. = N/A Max. = 10MB
* eCommerce used a combination of packet capture techniques and
reference traffic flows from "SPECweb2009" (need proper reference)
** The client and server processing time is distributed across the
transmission / receipt of all of messages. Client processing time
consists mainly of the delay between user interactions (not machine
processing).
And again, the parameters in this table are the guidelines for the
TCP test pattern traffic generation. The test tool can use fixed
parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for more
complex tests. However, the test pattern must be repeatable to
ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.
- SMB/CIFS File Copy: mimic a network file copy, both read and write.
As opposed to FTP which is a bulk transfer and is only flow
controlled via TCP, SMB/CIFS divides a file into application blocks
and utilizes application level handshaking in addition to
TCP flow control.
In summary, an SMB/CIFS file copy can be described by the following
parameters:
- Client message size (Scm)
- Number of client messages (Nc)
- Server response size (Srs)
- Number of Server messages (Ns)
- Client processing time (Tcp)
- Server processing time (Tsp)
- Block size (Sb)
The client and server messages are SMB control messages. The Block
size is the data portion of th file transfer.
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Again using packet capture as a means to characterize the following
table reflects the guidelines for SMB/CIFS file copy:
SMB
Parameter File Copy
------------------------------
Client message Ave. = 450B
size (Scm) Min. = 100B
Max. = 1.5KB
Number of client Ave. = 10
messages (Nc) Min. = 5
Max. = 25
Client processing Ave. = 1ms
time (Tcp) Min. = 0.5ms
Max. = 2
Server response Ave. = 2KB
size (Srs) Min. = 500B
Max. = 100KB
Number of server Ave. = 10
messages (Ns) Min. = 10
Max. = 200
Server processing Ave. = 1ms
time (Tsp) Min. = 0.5ms
Max. = 2ms
Block Ave. = N/A
Size (Sb)* Min. = 16KB
Max. = 128KB
*Depending upon the tested file size, the block size will be
transferred n number of times to complete the example. An example
would be a 10 MB file test and 64KB block size. In this case 160
blocks would be transferred after the control channel is opened
between the client and server.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Al Morton for his continuous review and
invaluable input to the document. We would also like to thank
Scott Bradner for providing guidance early in the drafts
conception in the area of benchmarking scope of traffic management
functions. Additionally, we would like to thank Tim Copley for this
original input and David Taht, Gory Erg, Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen for
their review and input for the AQM group. And for the formal reviews
of this document, we would like to thank Gilles Forget,
Vijay Gurbani, Reinhard Schrage, and Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Traffic Management Benchmarking June, 2015
Authors' Addresses
Barry Constantine
JDSU, Test and Measurement Division
Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA
Phone: +1 240 404 2227
Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com
Ram(Ramki) Krishnan
Dell Inc.
Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Phone: +001-408-406-7890
Email: ramkri123@gmail.com
Constantine June 9, 2015 [Page 42]
