Internet DRAFT - draft-lencse-v6ops-transition-benchmarking
draft-lencse-v6ops-transition-benchmarking
v6ops G. Lencse
Internet-Draft Szechenyi Istvan University
Intended status: Informational 2 May 2022
Expires: 3 November 2022
Performance Analysis of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
draft-lencse-v6ops-transition-benchmarking-01
Abstract
Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide
customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only
access and/or core network. All these technologies have their
advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology,
skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may
be the most appropriate solution for a network operator.
This document examines and compares the performance of some free
software implementations of the five most prominent IPv4aaS
technologies (464XLAT [RFC6877], Dual Stack Lite [RFC6333],
Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596], MAP-E [RFC7597] and MAP-T [RFC7599])
and DNS64 [RFC6147].
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 https://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 3 November 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Performance Analysis and Comparison of DNS64
Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Purpose and Significance of DNS64 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Measurement Method and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Measurement Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.2. 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
IETF has standardized several IPv6 transition technologies [LEN2019]
and occupied a neutral position trusting the selection of the most
appropriate ones to the market.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison] provides a comprehensive
comparative analysis of the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies
to assist operators with this problem. This document adds one more
detail: performance analysis and comparison of the most important
free software implementations of the examined IPv4aaS technologies
and DNS64.
2. Performance Analysis and Comparison of DNS64 Implementations
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
2.1. Purpose and Significance of DNS64
DNS64 [RFC6147] can be used together with stateful NAT64 [RFC6146] to
facilitate the communication of an IPv6-only client with an IPv4-only
server. In typical deployments, 464XLAT is used together with DNS64
[RFC6147], see Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8683]. In this case, the
stateful NAT64 gateway is granted as the PLAT of 464XLAT.
Theoretically, DNS64 could be used together with any of the other
IPv4aaS technologies, but then it would require the operation of a
stateful NAT64 gateway. So DNS64 performance is important for those,
who choose to use 464XLAT.
As elaborated in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison], the usage of DNS64 reduces
the amount of the traffic that undergoes double translation at least
by an order of magnitude, because the traffic of an IPv6-only client
and an IPv4-only server undergoes only a single translation.
2.2. Measurement Method and Parameters
The benchmarking method for DNS64 servers is defined in Section 9 of
[RFC8219]. Further details of the method and its design
considerations are elaborated in [LEN2017].
In short, the performance of the DNS64 servers is characterized by
the number of queries resolved per second, provided that the
resolution happens within (one second) timeout time and all the sent
queries are resolved. (This is the usual "zero loss" criterion
traditionally used in [RFC2544] and its derivatives.)
The worst case test, when there is no cache hit and no "AAAA" record
exists, thus the DNS64 server needs to send two queries (one query
for the "AAAA" record and another one for the "A" record) for each
received query is compulsory, and additional tests with varios rates
of cache hits and existing "AAAA" records are optional.
All the details of the actual measurements are described in
[LEN2018], where all the information given in the rest of Section 2
is taken from.
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
As for implementations, we have benchmarked all usable free software
DNS64 implementations we were aware of, namely: BIND
(9.10.3-P4-Debian), PowerDNS Recursor (4.0.4) and Unbound (1.6.0).
Their performance was examined as the function of the number of
active CPU cores using 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 CPU cores. Besides the
compulsory and optional tests defined by [RFC8219], we have also
examined the computing power relative DNS64 performance, that is the
number of processed queries per second divided by the CPU utilization
of the computer.
The measurements were performed using the resources of NICT StarBED,
Japan. The used Dell PowerEdge C6220 servers had two Intel Xeon
E5-2650 2GHz CPUs, having 8 cores each, and 16x8GB 1333MHz DDR3
SDRAM. They were interconnected by 1Gbps speed VLANs. Debian GNU/
Linux 9.2 operating system with kernel version 4.9.0-4-amd64 was used
on all computers.
All measurements were executed 20 times, and then median, minimum and
maximum of the 20 results were calculated.
2.3. Measurement Results
Only the most important results (median values of the worst case
peformance) are summarized here. All the details can be found in
[LEN2018].
The performance of BIND was 2,425qps (queries per second) at a single
core, and it scaled up to 4,788qps and 6,659qps at 2 and 4 cores,
respectively. However its performance did not increase at 8 cores
and it was practically the same (6,661qps) at 16 cores. Strangely,
the minimum and maximum performance was exactly the same as the
median at 4, 8 and 16 cores. We have reported this strange issue to
the developers of BIND, but we did not receive any reply or bugfix.
The performance of PowerDNS was 3,077qps at a single core, and it
scaled up quite well up to 26,620qps at 16 cores. The results were
consistent: the difference between the maximum and minimum values was
acceptable (under 13% of the median) at any number of CPU cores.
The performance of Unbound was 8,708qps at a single core with only a
low difference between the maximum and minimum values (about 4% of
the median). Its median performance showed and acceptable scale-up
to 31,502qps at 8 cores, but then it dropped to 17,131qps at 16
cores. And the results were rather inconsistent from 2 to 16 cores.
(E.g. the difference of the maximum and minimum values was more than
58% of the median at 16 cores.)
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
All-in-all, PowerDNS has shown the best scale-up and the most
consitent and predictable results, therefore we recommend its usage
in the case of a modern server with 16 or more CPU cores.
In the case of a single core server (e.g. a virtual machine) Unbound
can give the highest performance.
BIND has shown the lowest single core performance and poor scale-up.
It can only be used, if very moderate performance is needed.
3. Acknowledgements
TBD.
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not make any request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC8219] Georgescu, M., Pislaru, L., and G. Lencse, "Benchmarking
Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", RFC 8219,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8219, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8219>.
[RFC8683] Palet Martinez, J., "Additional Deployment Guidelines for
NAT64/464XLAT in Operator and Enterprise Networks",
RFC 8683, DOI 10.17487/RFC8683, November 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8683>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison]
Lencse, G., Martinez, J. P., Howard, L., Patterson, R.,
and I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition
Technologies for IPv4aaS", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-03, 5 April
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-
transition-comparison-03.txt>.
[LEN2017] Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Benchmarking Methodology
for DNS64 Servers", Computer Communications, vol. 109,
no. 1, pp. 162-175, DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2017.06.004, 1
September 2017,
<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-
2018-DNS64-BM-for-review.pdf>.
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking of IPv4aaS Technologies May 2022
[LEN2018] Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Benchmarking DNS64
Implementations: Theory and Practice", Computer
Communications, vol. 127, no. 1, pp.
61-74, 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.05.005, 1 September 2018,
<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECC-
2018-DNS64-BM-for-review.pdf>.
[LEN2019] Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of
IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification
for Security Analysis", IEICE Transactions on
Communications, vol. E102-B, no.10, pp. 2021-2035., DOI:
10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, 1 October 2019,
<http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/
e102-b_10_2021.pdf>.
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. 00
Initial version.
A.2. 01
DNS64 benchmarking was added.
Author's Address
Gabor Lencse
Szechenyi Istvan University
Gyor
Egyetem ter 1.
H-9026
Hungary
Email: lencse@sze.hu
Lencse Expires 3 November 2022 [Page 7]
