Internet DRAFT - draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark
draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark
Network Working Group T. Kim
Internet-Draft B. Koo
Intended status: Informational J. Park
Expires: January 4, 2018 E. Paik
KT
July 03, 2017
Considerations for Benchmarking Service Function Chain
draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-00
Abstract
Service Function Chain(SFC) is a ordered set of service functions.
Packets flow restrictively at the service functions according to the
order. To enable a network service, operator composes the service
function chain logically. Though SFC is efficient where network/
service requirements are dynamically changing, the reliability of SFC
should be guaranteed. This memo describes the considerations for
benchmarking SFC reliability.
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 January 4, 2018.
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft considerations for benchmarking sfc July 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Considerations for Benchmarking SFC Reliability . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Configuration Parameters for Benchmarking Test . . . . . 3
3.2. Testing Parameter Benchmarking Test . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
As Service Function Chain(SFC) is the ordered set of service
functions. It is logically defined on demand of a service. To
enable the service, SDN controller set flow rules at each physical/
virtual switch which belongs to the SFC. SFC is efficient where the
network/service requirements are keep changing dynamically. The
number of physical/virtual switches which will accept the flow rules
is differ from the size of the domain or service.
As an operator perspective, at the stage of SFC creation,
modification, and deletion, the reliability of SFC should always be
guaranteed. To apply the change of the SFC, SDN controller will set
flow rules at some switches and delete flow rules at other switches.
For certain reasons such as the heavy traffic on the target switches
which should accept new rules or the link failure between the target
switches and the SDN controller, the new SFC may not be applied
properly.
This draft memo describes considerations for benchmarking Service
Function Chain reliability.
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft considerations for benchmarking sfc July 2017
2. Scope
At the time of writing this memo, SFC standardization is now in
progress. But operators and vendors are implementing SFC their own
way. This memo does not target NSH enabled architecture and target
general operation circumstances. The scope of SFC reliability
benchmark is when the initial SFC is already provisioned and the
traffic also flows over the certain SFCs, and SFC needs to be
updated. Also, SFC is made over multi-domain network, which covers
the whole country.
This figure is an example of the network.
+----------------+
| SDN Controller |
+----------------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Domain A / \ Domain B
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| | | |
| +---------+ +----------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | vSwitch | | vSwitch | | | | pSwitch | | vSwitch | |
| +---------+ +----------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | | |
| +---------+ +----------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | pSwitch | | pSwitch | | | | vSwitch | | pSwitch | |
| +---------+ +----------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| ... | | ... |
+--------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
3. Considerations for Benchmarking SFC Reliability
This section defines and lists considerations which must be addressed
to benchmark the reliability of SFC
3.1. Configuration Parameters for Benchmarking Test
This section lists the parameters affecting the SFC reliability. To
apply new SFC, SDN controller set rules to the target switches.
Depending on the status of the swithes and the network, the new SFC
can be applied right as intended, or not. The right operation of SFC
as intended includes the right time of the operation activates.
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft considerations for benchmarking sfc July 2017
o Types of Switches : Virtual switch or Physical switch
o The number of switches in target SFC domain
* Depending on the composition of the target SFC, the number of
switches which need to update their flow tables is different.
o The Usage of Flow table of the target switch
* When the new SFC rule needs to setup, if the flow table entries
are not enought and have to stored elsewhere,not TCAM, the
usage of flow table can affect the reliability of SFC.
+ TCAM Usage
+ Flow table Entries
o The physical distances between the Controller and Switch
* As the network grows broad, the delay is same as propagation
delay. And this make SFC Activation time different.
o The traffic loads on the target switch
* The limitaion of the CPU, when the target switch needs to
process large amount of the traffic, the new SFC rules setup
cannot be done in intended time.
3.2. Testing Parameter Benchmarking Test
This section describes the testing parameter for Benchmark SFC
Reliability. In terms of operation, the reliability of SFC is
"operate the SFC in right time and at right path."
Rule Activation Time
o The time interval from the new flow rule setup requests to the
time when packets start to flow following the new matched rule.
TBD
4. Security Considerations
TBD.
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft considerations for benchmarking sfc July 2017
5. IANA Considerations
No IANA Action is requested at this time.
6. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
Authors' Addresses
Taekhee Kim
KT
Infra R&D Lab. KT
17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul 137-792
Korea
Phone: +82-2-526-6688
Fax: +82-2-526-5200
Email: taekhee.kim@kt.com
Bummo Koo
KT
Infra R&D Lab. KT
17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul 137-792
Korea
Phone: +82-2-526-6688
Fax: +82-2-526-5200
Email: bm.koo@kt.com
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft considerations for benchmarking sfc July 2017
Jisu Park
KT
Infra R&D Lab. KT
17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul 137-792
Korea
Phone: +82-2-526-6688
Fax: +82-2-526-5200
Email: jisu.park@kt.com
EunKyoung Paik
KT
Infra R&D Lab. KT
17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
Seoul 137-792
Korea
Phone: +82-2-526-5233
Fax: +82-2-526-5200
Email: eun.paik@kt.com
URI: http://mmlab.snu.ac.kr/~eun/
Kim, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 6]
