Internet DRAFT - draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv
draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv
Network Working Group M. Tahhan
Internet-Draft B. O'Mahony
Intended status: Informational Intel
Expires: September 22, 2016 A. Morton
AT&T Labs
March 21, 2016
Benchmarking Virtual Switches in OPNFV
draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-02
Abstract
This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
project on virtual switch performance "VSWITCHPERF". This project
intends to build on the current and completed work of the
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing
existing literature. The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has
traditionally conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated
physical implementations of internetworking functions. Therefore,
this memo begins to describe 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 September 22, 2016.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 4
3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Benchmarks using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 7
4. VSWITCHPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Accuracy of Activation section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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.
This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization,
"VSWITCHPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release [BrahRel].
This project intends to build on the current and completed work of
the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in IETF, by referencing
existing literature. For example, currently the most often
referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which depends on [RFC1242]) and
foundation of the benchmarking work in OPNFV is common and strong.
See https://wiki.opnfv.org/
characterize_vswitch_performance_for_telco_nfv_use_cases for more
background, and the OPNFV website for general information:
https://www.opnfv.org/
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.
Note also that the move to NFV Infrastructure has resulted in many
new benchmarking initiatives across the industry. The authors are
currently doing their best to maintain alignment with many other
projects, and this Internet Draft is one part of the efforts. We
acknowledge the early work in
[I-D.huang-bmwg-virtual-network-performance], and useful discussion
with the authors.
2. Scope
The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry
of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG
literature and experience, and describe the extensions needed for
benchmarking virtual switches. Inital feedback indicates that many
of these extensions may be applicable beyond the current scope (to
hardware switches in the NFV Infrastructure and to virtual routers,
for example). Additionally, this memo serves as a vehicle to include
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
more detail and commentary from BMWG and other Open Source
communities, under BMWG's chartered work to characterize the NFV
Infrastructure (a virtual switch is an important aspect of that
infrastructure).
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 network functions this
memo re-uses existing benchmarks through references, and expands them
during development of new methods. A key configuration aspect is the
number of parallel cores required to achieve comparable performance
with a given physical device, or whether some limit of scale was
reached before the cores could achieve the comparable level.
It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application
running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory
footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of
internetworking functions.
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.
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.
Hardware details including:
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
o Platform details
o Processor details
o Memory information (type and size)
o Number of enabled cores
o Number of cores used for the test
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
o BIOS version, release date and any configurations that were
modified
o CPU microcode level
o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the
same as dual rank) in size, freq and slot locations
o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ack option...)
o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
package, OS...)
Software details including:
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
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
o DPDK or any other SW dependency version number or commit id used
o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugpages/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, IMIX / Other
o Packet Sizes
o Deployment Scenario
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 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, the source IP address, the destination IP address and
the Ethernet protocol type field. It is essential to increase the
flow timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any performance
tests that do not measure the flow setup time. 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.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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).
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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, vSw 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. VSWITCHPERF 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:
o [RFC2544] Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect
Devices
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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
o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement
Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include:
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, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics.
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, etc.). 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 (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below:
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.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 as
the number of flows, active ports, complexity of the forwarding
logic's configuration... it has to deal with increases.
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 coupled the datapath and the control path are 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, usually 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,
and at least 6 hours). The purpose of soak tests is to capture
transient changes in performance which may occur due to infrequent
processes or the low probability coincidence of two or more
processes. The 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).
Future/planned test specs include:
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.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network
means that the BMWG IETF existing literature needs to be used to
characterize the performance of a switch in various deployment
scenarios. The deployment scenarios under consideration include:
Physical port to virtual switch to physical port
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | v | | Host
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | phy port | vSwitch | phy port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| traffic generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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 CPU.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification
o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
5.6. Accuracy of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
5.7. Reliability of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
5.8. Scalability of Operation
o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
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
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.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
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.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[NFV.PER001]
"Network Function Virtualization: Performance and
Portability Best Practices", Group Specification ETSI GS
NFV-PER 001 V1.1.1 (2014-06), June 2014.
[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>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[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>.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[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>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
[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>.
[RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana,
"Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic
Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, DOI 10.17487/RFC4689,
October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4689>.
[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>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[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>.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
9.2. Informative References
[BrahRel] "Brahmaputra, Second OPNFV Release https://www.opnfv.org/
brahmaputra".
[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-01 (work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]
Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf-
bmwg-virtual-net-02 (work in progress), March 2016.
[IFA003] "https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/
IFA003_Acceleration_-_vSwitch_Spec/".
[LTD] "LTD Test Specification
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/vswitchperf/docs/requirements/
index.html".
[LTDoverV]
"LTD Test Spec Overview https://wiki.opnfv.org/wiki/
vswitchperf_test_spec_review".
[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>.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.
[RFC6248] Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and the IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Registry of Metrics Are Obsolete", RFC 6248,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6248, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6248>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
Tahhan, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Benchmarking vSwitches March 2016
[TestTopo]
"Test Topologies https://wiki.opnfv.org/vsperf/
test_methodology".
Authors' Addresses
Maryam Tahhan
Intel
Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com
Billy O'Mahony
Intel
Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com
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 September 22, 2016 [Page 22]
