Internet DRAFT - draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-meth
draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-meth
Network Working Group T. Kim
Internet-Draft H. Yu
Intended status: Informational C. Jeong
Expires: May 4, 2017 Y. Han
E. Paik
KT
October 31, 2016
Benchmarking Methodology for Service Function Chain Performance
draft-kim-bmwg-sfc-benchmark-meth-00
Abstract
Service Function Chain is the ordered set of service functions such
as firewall, Deep Packet Inspection(DPI), virtualized Evolved Packet
Core (vEPC), and etc,. Operators make chains with several service
functions depending on the service which they have to provide. The
chain needs to be evaluated to measure the SLA. This draft describes
the benchmarking methodologies for Service Function Chain(SFC)
performance and the affecting factors to SFC performance.
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 May 4, 2017.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Test Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Test Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Benchmarking Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. E2E Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. E2E Packet Loss Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.3. E2E Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Factors affecting the SFC Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Service Function Chain is the ordered set of service functions such
as firewall, Deep Packet Inspection(DPI), virtualized Evolved Packet
Core (vEPC), and etc,. The service functions include virtualized
network functions and physical network functions. As the network
infrastructure become virtualized, operators make chains with several
service functions depending on the service which they have to
provide. The chain needs to be evaluated to measure the SLA.
This draft describes the benchmarking methodologies for Service
Function Chain(SFC) performance and the influential factors to SFC
performance.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
2. Definition of Terms
The detail explanations of each term are in [RFC 7665]
SF Service Function
SFC Service Function Chain
SFF Service Function Forwarder
CLA Classifier
PNF Physical Network Function
VNF Virtualized Network Function
NSH Network Service Header
3. Test Setup
This section discusses test topology and the test traffic
3.1. Test Topology
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cloud |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
| | | | | |
| | VNF 1 | | VNF 2 | |
| | | | | |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| +---------+ +-----------------------+ +---------+ | +--------+
| | | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | |
| | vHost 1 |----| |CLA| |SFF| Virtual|----| vHost 2 | | | PNF |
| | | | +---+ +---+ Switch | | | | | |
| +---------+ +-----------------------+ +---------+ | +--------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
+--------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +--------+
| | | +----------+ +--------------------------+ | | |
| Host 3 |----| |Classifier| |Service Function Forwarder| |----| Host 4 |
| | | +----------+ +--------------------------+ Physical Switch | | |
+--------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +--------+
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
3.2. Test Traffic
There are two types of traffic. One is External traffic and the
other is Internal traffic.
o Internal Traffic :
* The traffic flows inside the cloud. A source host and a
destination host are inside the same cloud and the SFC is also
made in the cloud. Therefore, the SFC does not contain a SF
outside the cloud(PNF). (e.g. SFC : vHost1 -> VNF1 -> VNF2 ->
vHost2)
o External Traffic :
* The traffic flows outside the cloud. A source host or
destination host can be exists outside the cloud. Therefore,
the SFC can contain a SF outside the cloud(PNF) (e.g. SFC :
Host3 -> VNF1 -> VNF2 -> PNF-> Host4)
The frame sizes of the test traffic SHOULD be multiple sizes as
recommended in RFC2544.
4. Benchmarking Test
4.1. Connectivity
Objective :
The connectivity of each part of SFC and the end to end SFC it self.
This test demonstrates the SFC works properly.
Procedure:
1. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host
2. Check each SF and links between the SFs
3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination
host.
4. Among SFs, the test traffic SHOULD flows only selected SF from
the source host to the destination host.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
4.2. Performance
4.2.1. E2E Latency
Objective :
This test demonstrates how much time the SFC takes to flow traffic
from the source host to the desination host. Latency is the key of
some services such as video streaming.
Procedure:
1. Check the connectivity of the SFC
2. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host
3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination
host.
Measurement:
E2E Latency Time = TL
Average E2E Latency :
TL1 + TL2 + ...TLn
----------------------
Total Test Iterations
4.2.2. E2E Packet Loss Rate
Objective :
This test demonstrates how many packets are loss depending on the
frame sizes or parallel SFCs
Procedure:
1. Check the connectivity of the SFC
2. Make the conflict circumstances with differenct frame sizes and
other SFCs
3. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host.
4. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination
host.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
Measurement:
E2E Packet Loss Rate = PLR
Average Packet Loss Rate :
PLR1 + PLR2 + ...PLRn
------------------------
Total Test Iterations
4.2.3. E2E Bandwidth
Objective :
This test demonstrates how much bandwidth the SFC can support. To
find out the bandwidth of SFC is enough for particular sevices such
as bandwidth-intensive services.
Procedure:
1. Check the connectivity of the SFC
2. Send the test traffic from source host to destination host.
3. Check the test traffic from the source host and the destination
host has no packet loss.
4. Record the E2E Bandwidth.
Measurement:
E2E Bandwidth = BW
Average E2E Bandwidth :
BW1 + BW2 + ...BWn
---------------------
Total Test Iterations
5. Factors affecting the SFC Performance
This section describes factors affecting the SFC performance.
o SFC awareness
* - Depending on the awareness of SFC encapsulation,NSH, the SFC
performance is different. When SFC uses NSH, it takes time to
check the NSH of every packet.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
o Composition of SFC
* the number of SFs in the SFC affects the SFC performance
because of the trasition overhead.
o Operation of SF
* The operations of SF can affect to the SFC performance, such as
DPI and UTM.
* When the SF has multi functions, the traffic takes time to pass
through the SF.
o Types of SF; PNF or VNF
* It is hard to assure the network performance of VNF because it
is on the virtual machine(VM); VNF is affected from the CPU of
physical machine(PM).
* VNF is also affected from the number of flow rules in the
virtual switch.
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. IANA Considerations
No IANA Action is requested at this time.
8. 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>.
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
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
Hyun Yu
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: hyun.yu@kt.com
Chiwook Jeong
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: chiwook.jeong@kt.com
Youngtae Han
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: youngtae.han@kt.com
Kim, et al. Expires May 4, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft sfc performance benchmarking October 2016
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 May 4, 2017 [Page 9]
