Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv
Network Working Group M. Tahhan
Internet-Draft B. O'Mahony
Intended status: Informational Intel
Expires: December 10, 2017 A. Morton
AT&T Labs
June 8, 2017
Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-04
Abstract
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSPERF", particularly
in the areas of test set-ups and configuration parameters for the
system under test. This project has extended the current and
completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF,
and references existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology
Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory characterization
of dedicated physical implementations of internetworking functions.
Therefore, this memo describes the additional considerations when
virtual switches are implemented in general-purpose hardware. The
expanded tests and benchmarks are also influenced by the OPNFV
mission to support virtualization of the "telco" infrastructure.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2017.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 5
3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 8
4. VSPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Accuracy of Activation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
1. Introduction
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
implementations of internetworking functions. The Black-box
Benchmarks of Throughput, Latency, Forwarding Rates and others have
served our industry for many years. Now, Network Function
Virtualization (NFV) has the goal to transform how internetwork
functions are implemented, and therefore has garnered much attention.
A virtual switch (vswitch) is an important aspect of the NFV
infrastructure; it provides connectivity between and among physical
network functions and virtual network functions. As a result, there
are many vswitch benchmarking efforts, but few specifications to
guide the many new test design choices. This is a complex problem
and an industry-wide work-in-progress. In future, several of BMWG's
fundamental specifications will likely be updated as more testing
experience helps to form consensus around new methodologies, and BMWG
should continue to collaborate with all organizations who share the
same goal.
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
"VSPERF", through the Danube 3.0 (fourth) release [DanubeRel] to the
chartered work of the BMWG (with stable references to their test
descriptions). This project has extended the current and completed
work of the BMWG in IETF, and references existing literature. For
example, the most often referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which depends on
[RFC1242]), so the foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is
common and strong. The recommended extensions are specifically in
the areas of test set-ups and configuration parameters for the system
under test.
See [VSPERFhome] for more background, and the OPNFV website for
general information [OPNFV].
The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open
source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on
existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud-computing. There are
many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on
performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for
and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example.
1.1. Abbreviations
For the purposes of this document, the following abbreviations apply:
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
ACK Acknowledge
ACPI Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
BIOS Basic Input Output System
BMWG Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
CPDP Control Plane Data Plane
CPU Central Processing Unit
DIMM Dual In-line Memory Module
DPDK Data Plane Development Kit
DUT Device Under Test
GRUB Grand Unified Bootloader
ID Identification
IMIX Internet Mix
IP Internet Protocol
IPPM IP Performance Metrics
LAN Local Area Network
LTD Level Test Design
NFV Network Functions Virtualisation
NIC Network Interface Card
NUMA Non Uniform Memory Access
OPNFV Open Platform for NFV
OS Operating System
PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect
PDV Packet Delay Variation
SR/IOV Single Root/Input Output Virtualization
SUT System Under Test
SW Software
TCP Transmission control Protocol
TSO TCP Segment Offload
UDP User Datagram Protocol
VM Virtual Machine
VNF Virtualised Network Function
VSPERF OPNFV vSwitch Performance Project
2. Scope
The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to describe key aspects
of vswitch benchmarking, particularly in the areas of test set-ups
and configuration parameters for the system under test, and extend
the body of extensive BMWG literature and experience. Initial
feedback indicates that many of these extensions may be applicable
beyond this memo's current scope (to hardware switches in the NFV
Infrastructure and to virtual routers, for example). Additionally,
this memo serves as a vehicle to include more detail and relevant
commentary from BMWG and other Open Source communities, under BMWG's
chartered work to characterize the NFV Infrastructure.
The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many
types of vswitches, and remain vswitch-agnostic to great degree.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
There has been no attempt to track and test all features of any
specific vswitch implementation.
3. Benchmarking Considerations
This section highlights some specific considerations (from
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net])related to Benchmarks for virtual
switches. The OPNFV project is sharing its present view on these
areas, as they develop their specifications in the Level Test Design
(LTD) document.
3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions
To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
BMWG has developed specifications for many physical network
functions. The BMWG has recommended to re-use existing benchmarks
and methods in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net], and the OPNFV LTD expands
on them as described here. A key configuration aspect for vswitches
is the number of parallel CPU cores required to achieve comparable
performance with a given physical device, or whether some limit of
scale will be reached before the vswitch can achieve the comparable
performance level.
It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application
running on the System Under Test (SUT), so CPU utilization, Cache
utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the
virtual implementations of internetworking functions. However,
internally-measured metrics such as these are not benchmarks; they
may be useful for the audience (operations) to know, and may also be
useful if there is a problem encountered during testing.
Benchmark Comparability between virtual and physical/hardware
implementations of equivalent functions will likely place more
detailed and exact requirements on the *testing systems* (in terms of
stream generation, algorithms to search for max values, and their
configurations of course). This is another area for standards
development to appreciate. However, the is a topic for a future
draft.
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks
External observations remain essential as the basis for Benchmarks.
Internal observations with fixed specification and interpretation
will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations
procedures when the technology is deployed.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
3.3. New Configuration Parameters
A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying
to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When
benchmarking the performance of a vswitch there are many factors that
can affect the consistency of results, one key factor is matching the
various hardware and software details of the SUT. This section lists
some of the many new parameters which this project believes are
critical to report in order to achieve repeatability.
It has been the goal of the project to produce repeatable results,
and a large set of the parameters believed to be critical is provided
so that the benchmarking community can better appreciate the increase
in configuration complexity inherent in this work. The parameter set
below is assumed sufficient for the infrastructure in use by the
VSPERF project to obtain repeatable results from test-to-test.
Hardware details (platform, processor, memory, and network)
including:
o BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
modified
o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
package, OS...)
o CPU microcode level
o Number of enabled cores
o Number of cores used for the test
o Memory information (type and size)
o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the
same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations
o Number of physical NICs, as well as their details (manufacturer,
versions, type and the PCI slot they are plugged into)
o NIC interrupt configuration (and any special features in use)
o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ACK option,
etc.)
Software details including:
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
o OS parameters and behavior (text vs graphical no one typing at the
console on one system)
o OS version (for host and VNF)
o Kernel version (for host and VNF)
o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)
o Hypervisor details (Type and version)
o Selected vswitch, version number or commit id used
o vswitch launch command line if it has been parameterised
o Memory allocation to the vswitch
o which NUMA node it is using, and how many memory channels
o DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used
o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugepages/elsewhere
o VM storage type: snapshot/independent persistent/independent non-
persistent
o Number of VMs
o Number of Virtual NICs (vNICs), versions, type and driver
o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host
o Number vNIC interrupt configuration
o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vswitch
itself) on the host
o Details of Resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/
Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
(taskset). - Test duration. - Number of flows.
Test Traffic Information:
o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, others.
o Frame Sizes - fixed or IMIX [RFC6985](with [IEEE802.1ac], frames
may be longer than 1500 bytes, and up to 2000 bytes)
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
o Deployment Scenario - defines the communications path in the SUT
3.4. Flow classification
Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching
particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets
based on the input ports. Thus a flow can be thought of a sequence
of packets that have the same set of header field values, or have
arrived on the same physical or logical port. Performance results
can vary based on the parameters the vswitch uses to match for a
flow. The recommended flow classification parameters for any vswitch
performance tests are: the input port (physical or logical), the
source MAC address, the destination MAC address, the source IP
address, the destination IP address and the Ethernet protocol type
field (although classification may take place on other fields, such
as source and destination transport port numbers). It is essential
to increase the flow timeout time on a vswitch before conducting any
performance tests that do not intend to measure the flow setup time,
see Section 3 of [RFC2889]. Normally the first packet of a
particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch which
adds an additional latency, subsequent packets of the same flow are
not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on the
vswitch.
3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation
This outline describes measurement of baseline with isolated
resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
time.
1. Baselines:
* Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a
vswitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of
platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance
for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and
latency).
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 1 Benchmark platform forwarding capability
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
| | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
* Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity
(vswitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves
as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base
performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding
rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will
serve as a key comparison point for vswitch bypass
technologies performance and vswitch performance.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 2 Benchmark VNF forwarding capability
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | VNF | | |
| | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, with other
resources (both HW&SW) disabled Example, vswitch and VM are
SUT
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, leaving some
resources unused
* Benchmark with isolated resources and all resources occupied
2. Next Steps
* Limited sharing
* Production scenarios
* Stressful scenarios
4. VSPERF Specification Summary
The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance
tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the pre-
existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of
physical switches. These specifications include:
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
o [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
Devices
o [RFC2889] Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching
o [RFC6201] Device Reset Characterization
o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement
Some of the above/newer RFCs are being applied in benchmarking for
the first time, and represent a development challenge for test
equipment developers. Fortunately, many members of the testing
system community have engaged on the VSPERF project, including an
open source test system.
In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by:
o [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices
It is recommended that these references are included in future
benchmarking specifications:
o [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
o [RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics
As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
characteristics of Throughput and Latency remain important when the
switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
specification.
When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
functions, additional performance metrics are needed. In this case,
the project specifications have referenced metrics from the IETF IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the [RFC2544]
test of Latency is replaced by measurement of a metric derived from
IPPM's [RFC2679], where a set of statistical summaries will be
provided (mean, max, min, and percentiles). Further metrics planned
to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined by
[RFC5481] , reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT
capacity and packet loss in long term testing at Throughput level,
where some low-level of background loss may be present and
characterized.
Tests have been designed to collect the metrics below:
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
o Throughput Tests to measure the maximum forwarding rate (in frames
per second or fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a constant load (as
defined by [RFC1242]) without traffic loss.
o Packet and Frame Delay Distribution Tests to measure average, min
and max packet and frame delay for constant loads.
o Packet Delay Tests to understand latency distribution for
different packet sizes and over an extended test run to uncover
outliers.
o Scalability Tests to understand how the virtual switch performs
with increasing number of flows, number of active ports,
configuration complexity of the forwarding logic, etc.
o Stream Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) to measure bulk data transfer
performance, i.e. how fast systems can send and receive data
through the switch.
o Control Path and Datapath Coupling Tests, to understand how
closely the datapath and the control path are coupled, as well as
the effect of this coupling on the performance of the DUT
(example: delay of the initial packet of a flow).
o CPU and Memory Consumption Tests to understand the virtual
switch's footprint on the system, conducted as auxiliary
measurements with benchmarks above. They include: CPU
utilization, Cache utilization and Memory footprint.
o The so-called "Soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours,
but only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when
found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT
exhibits instability over time). The key performance
characteristics and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using
short duration tests) prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose
of soak tests is to capture transient changes in performance which
may occur due to infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the low
probability coincidence of two or more processes. The stability
of the DUT is the paramount consideration, so performance must be
evaluated periodically during continuous testing, and this results
in use of [RFC2889] Frame Rate metrics instead of [RFC2544]
Throughput (which requires stopping traffic to allow time for all
traffic to exit internal queues), for example.
Additional test specification development should include:
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
o Request/Response Performance Tests (TCP, UDP) which measure the
transaction rate through the switch.
o Noisy Neighbour Tests, to understand the effects of resource
sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration
technologies applied to vswitches.
The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network
means that it is necessary to characterize the performance of a
vswitch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios
under consideration include:
Figure 3 Physical port to virtual switch to physical port
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | v | | Host
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | phy port | vswitch | phy port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 4 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to
physical port
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Guest
| : v | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
+---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v __
+---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
| | logical port 0| | logical port 1| | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Host
| : v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | phy port | vswitch | phy port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 5 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF to virtual switch to
VNF to virtual switch to physical port
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| ^ | | | ^ | | |
| | v | | | v | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
| | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
^ : ^ :
| | | |
: v : v _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
| | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ | ^ | | | Host
| | |-----------------| v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | phy ports | vswitch | phy ports | | |
+---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 6 Physical port to virtual switch to VNF
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Guest
| : | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | logical port 0| | |
+---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
^
|
: __
+---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
| | logical port 0| | |
| +---------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Host
| : | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | phy port | vswitch | |
+---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
^
|
:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 7 VNF to virtual switch to physical port
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Guest
| v | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | logical port | | |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
:
|
v __
+------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
| | logical port | | |
| +---------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Host
| v | |
| +--------------+ | |
| vswitch | phy port | | |
+-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
:
|
v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Figure 8 VNF to virtual switch to VNF
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | | | ^ | |
| v | | | | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | logical ports | | | | logical ports | | |
| | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
: ^
| |
v : _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 1 | | 1 | | |
| | logical ports | | logical ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | ^ | | Host
| L-----------------+ | |
| | |
| vswitch | |
+------------------------------------------------+_|
A set of Deployment Scenario figures is available on the VSPERF Test
Methodology Wiki page [TestTopo].
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage
This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
"3x3" matrix (introduced in [I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]). Because
the LTD specification ID names are quite long, this section is
organized into lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all
are occupied, also the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale
metrics when displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks).
The current version of the LTD specification is available [LTD].
The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
plane, rather than the control plane.
A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" Wiki page [LTDoverV].
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
5.1. Speed of Activation
o Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
5.2. Accuracy of Activation section
o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition
5.3. Reliability of Activation
o Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
o Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime
5.4. Scale of Activation
o Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
5.5. Speed of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate
o Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification
o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
o Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
o Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
5.6. Accuracy of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
5.7. Reliability of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
5.8. Scalability of Operation
o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
o Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
o Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
5.9. Summary
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
| | | | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Activation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Operation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| De-activation | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
6. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
(DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment, with
dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
above.
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
7. IANA Considerations
No IANA Action is requested at this time.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
Christian Trautman, and others for their reviews.
We also acknowledge the early work in
[I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance], and useful discussion
with the authors.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285,
February 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
[RFC2889] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>.
[RFC3918] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast
Benchmarking", RFC 3918, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October
2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918>.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.
9.2. Informative References
[DanubeRel]
"Danube, Fourth OPNFV Release
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Danube".
[I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance]
Huang, L., Rong, G., Mandeville, B., and B. Hickman,
"Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization Network
Performance", draft-huang-bmwg-virtual-network-
performance-02 (work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]
Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf-
bmwg-virtual-net-05 (work in progress), March 2017.
[IEEE802.1ac]
https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.1AC-
2016.html, "802.1AC-2016 - IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks -- Media Access Control (MAC)
Service Definition", 2016.
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
[IFA003] "https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/
IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/".
[LTD] Note: if the Danube Release LTD is available in artifacts
at publication, we will use that URL instead., "LTD Test S
pecificationhttp://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/colorad
o/docs/requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html".
[LTDoverV]
"LTD Test Spec Overview
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
LTD+Test+Spec+Overview".
[OPNFV] "OPNFV Home https://www.opnfv.org/".
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[TestTopo]
"Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
Test+Methodology".
[VSPERFhome]
"VSPERF Home https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
VSperf+Home".
Authors' Addresses
Maryam Tahhan
Intel
Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com
Billy O'Mahony
Intel
Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches June 2017
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Tahhan, et al. Expires December 10, 2017 [Page 24]
