rfc7502
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Davids
Request for Comments: 7502 Illinois Institute of Technology
Category: Informational V. Gurbani
ISSN: 2070-1721 Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
S. Poretsky
Allot Communications
April 2015
Methodology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices:
Basic Session Setup and Registration
Abstract
This document provides a methodology for benchmarking the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) performance of devices. Terminology
related to benchmarking SIP devices is described in the companion
terminology document (RFC 7501). Using these two documents,
benchmarks can be obtained and compared for different types of
devices such as SIP Proxy Servers, Registrars, and Session Border
Controllers. The term "performance" in this context means the
capacity of the Device Under Test (DUT) to process SIP messages.
Media streams are used only to study how they impact the signaling
behavior. The intent of the two documents is to provide a normalized
set of tests that will enable an objective comparison of the capacity
of SIP devices. Test setup parameters and a methodology are
necessary because SIP allows a wide range of configurations and
operational conditions that can influence performance benchmark
measurements.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7502.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Benchmarking Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Test Setup Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Selection of SIP Transport Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Connection-Oriented Transport Management . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Signaling Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Associated Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Selection of Associated Media Protocol . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Number of Associated Media Streams per SIP Session . . . 8
4.7. Codec Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.8. Session Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.9. Attempted Sessions per Second (sps) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.10. Benchmarking Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Test Setup Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Device Benchmarks for Session Setup . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Device Benchmarks for Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Baseline Session Establishment Rate of the Testbed . . . 13
6.2. Session Establishment Rate without Media . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Session Establishment Rate with Media Not on DUT . . . . 13
6.4. Session Establishment Rate with Media on DUT . . . . . . 14
6.5. Session Establishment Rate with TLS-Encrypted SIP . . . . 14
6.6. Session Establishment Rate with IPsec-Encrypted SIP . . . 15
6.7. Registration Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.8. Re-registration Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. R Code Component to Simulate Benchmarking Algorithm 18
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
1. Introduction
This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) performance as described in the Terminology
document [RFC7501]. The methodology and terminology are to be used
for benchmarking signaling plane performance with varying signaling
and media load. Media streams, when used, are used only to study how
they impact the signaling behavior. This document concentrates on
benchmarking SIP session setup and SIP registrations only.
The Device Under Test (DUT) is a network intermediary that is RFC
3261 [RFC3261] capable and that plays the role of a registrar,
redirect server, stateful proxy, a Session Border Controller (SBC) or
a B2BUA. This document does not require the intermediary to assume
the role of a stateless proxy. Benchmarks can be obtained and
compared for different types of devices such as a SIP proxy server,
Session Border Controllers (SBC), SIP registrars and a SIP proxy
server paired with a media relay.
The test cases provide metrics for benchmarking the maximum 'SIP
Registration Rate' and maximum 'SIP Session Establishment Rate' that
the DUT can sustain over an extended period of time without failures
(extended period of time is defined in the algorithm in
Section 4.10). Some cases are included to cover encrypted SIP. The
test topologies that can be used are described in the Test Setup
section. Topologies in which the DUT handles media as well as those
in which the DUT does not handle media are both considered. The
measurement of the performance characteristics of the media itself is
outside the scope of these documents.
Benchmark metrics could possibly be impacted by Associated Media.
The selected values for Session Duration and Media Streams per
Session enable benchmark metrics to be benchmarked without Associated
Media. Session Setup Rate could possibly be impacted by the selected
value for Maximum Sessions Attempted. The benchmark for Session
Establishment Rate is measured with a fixed value for maximum Session
Attempts.
Finally, the overall value of these tests is to serve as a comparison
function between multiple SIP implementations. One way to use these
tests is to derive benchmarks with SIP devices from Vendor-A, derive
a new set of benchmarks with similar SIP devices from Vendor-B and
perform a comparison on the results of Vendor-A and Vendor-B. This
document does not make any claims on the interpretation of such
results.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14, conforming to [RFC2119] and indicate requirement
levels for compliant implementations.
RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent
of Standards Track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a Standards Track
document.
Terms specific to SIP [RFC3261] performance benchmarking are defined
in [RFC7501].
3. Benchmarking Topologies
Test organizations need to be aware that these tests generate large
volumes of data and consequently ensure that networking devices like
hubs, switches, or routers are able to handle the generated volume.
The test cases enumerated in Sections 6.1 to 6.6 operate on two test
topologies: one in which the DUT does not process the media
(Figure 1) and the other in which it does process media (Figure 2).
In both cases, the tester or Emulated Agent (EA) sends traffic into
the DUT and absorbs traffic from the DUT. The diagrams in Figures 1
and 2 represent the logical flow of information and do not dictate a
particular physical arrangement of the entities.
Figure 1 depicts a layout in which the DUT is an intermediary between
the two interfaces of the EA. If the test case requires the exchange
of media, the media does not flow through the DUT but rather passes
directly between the two endpoints. Figure 2 shows the DUT as an
intermediary between the two interfaces of the EA. If the test case
requires the exchange of media, the media flows through the DUT
between the endpoints.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
+--------+ Session +--------+ Session +--------+
| | Attempt | | Attempt | |
| |------------>+ |------------>+ |
| | | | | |
| | Response | | Response | |
| Tester +<------------| DUT +<------------| Tester |
| (EA) | | | | (EA) |
| | | | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
/|\ /|\
| Media (optional) |
+==============================================+
Figure 1: DUT as an Intermediary, End-to-End Media
+--------+ Session +--------+ Session +--------+
| | Attempt | | Attempt | |
| |------------>+ |------------>+ |
| | | | | |
| | Response | | Response | |
| Tester +<------------| DUT +<------------| Tester |
| (EA) | | | | (EA) |
| |<===========>| |<===========>| |
+--------+ Media +--------+ Media +--------+
(Optional) (Optional)
Figure 2: DUT as an Intermediary Forwarding Media
The test cases enumerated in Sections 6.7 and 6.8 use the topology in
Figure 3 below.
+--------+ Registration +--------+
| | request | |
| |------------->+ |
| | | |
| | Response | |
| Tester +<-------------| DUT |
| (EA) | | |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 3: Registration and Re-registration Tests
During registration or re-registration, the DUT may involve backend
network elements and data stores. These network elements and data
stores are not shown in Figure 3, but it is understood that they will
impact the time required for the DUT to generate a response.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
This document explicitly separates a registration test (Section 6.7)
from a re-registration test (Section 6.8) because in certain
networks, the time to re-register may vary from the time to perform
an initial registration due to the backend processing involved. It
is expected that the registration tests and the re-registration test
will be performed with the same set of backend network elements in
order to derive a stable metric.
4. Test Setup Parameters
4.1. Selection of SIP Transport Protocol
Test cases may be performed with any transport protocol supported by
SIP. This includes, but is not limited to, TCP, UDP, TLS, and
websockets. The protocol used for the SIP transport protocol must be
reported with benchmarking results.
SIP allows a DUT to use different transports for signaling on either
side of the connection to the EAs. Therefore, this document assumes
that the same transport is used on both sides of the connection; if
this is not the case in any of the tests, the transport on each side
of the connection MUST be reported in the test-reporting template.
4.2. Connection-Oriented Transport Management
SIP allows a device to open one connection and send multiple requests
over the same connection (responses are normally received over the
same connection that the request was sent out on). The protocol also
allows a device to open a new connection for each individual request.
A connection management strategy will have an impact on the results
obtained from the test cases, especially for connection-oriented
transports such as TLS. For such transports, the cryptographic
handshake must occur every time a connection is opened.
The connection management strategy, i.e., use of one connection to
send all requests or closing an existing connection and opening a new
connection to send each request, MUST be reported with the
benchmarking result.
4.3. Signaling Server
The Signaling Server is defined in the companion terminology document
([RFC7501], Section 3.2.2). The Signaling Server is a DUT.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
4.4. Associated Media
Some tests require Associated Media to be present for each SIP
session. The test topologies to be used when benchmarking DUT
performance for Associated Media are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
4.5. Selection of Associated Media Protocol
The test cases specified in this document provide SIP performance
independent of the protocol used for the media stream. Any media
protocol supported by SIP may be used. This includes, but is not
limited to, RTP and SRTP. The protocol used for Associated Media
MUST be reported with benchmarking results.
4.6. Number of Associated Media Streams per SIP Session
Benchmarking results may vary with the number of media streams per
SIP session. When benchmarking a DUT for voice, a single media
stream is used. When benchmarking a DUT for voice and video, two
media streams are used. The number of Associated Media Streams MUST
be reported with benchmarking results.
4.7. Codec Type
The test cases specified in this document provide SIP performance
independent of the media stream codec. Any codec supported by the
EAs may be used. The codec used for Associated Media MUST be
reported with the benchmarking results.
4.8. Session Duration
The value of the DUT's performance benchmarks may vary with the
duration of SIP sessions. Session Duration MUST be reported with
benchmarking results. A Session Duration of zero seconds indicates
transmission of a BYE immediately following a successful SIP
establishment. Setting this parameter to the value '0' indicates
that a BYE will be sent by the EA immediately after the EA receives a
200 OK to the INVITE. Setting this parameter to a time value greater
than the duration of the test indicates that a BYE will never be
sent. Setting this parameter to a time value greater than the
duration of the test indicates that a BYE is never sent.
4.9. Attempted Sessions per Second (sps)
The value of the DUT's performance benchmarks may vary with the
Session Attempt Rate offered by the tester. Session Attempt Rate
MUST be reported with the benchmarking results.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
The test cases enumerated in Sections 6.1 to 6.6 require that the EA
is configured to send the final 2xx-class response as quickly as it
can. This document does not require the tester to add any delay
between receiving a request and generating a final response.
4.10. Benchmarking Algorithm
In order to benchmark the test cases uniformly in Section 6, the
algorithm described in this section should be used. A prosaic
description of the algorithm and a pseudocode description are
provided below, and a simulation written in the R statistical
language [Rtool] is provided in Appendix A.
The goal is to find the largest value, R, a SIP Session Attempt Rate,
measured in sessions per second (sps), which the DUT can process with
zero errors over a defined, extended period. This period is defined
as the amount of time needed to attempt N SIP sessions, where N is a
parameter of test, at the attempt rate, R. An iterative process is
used to find this rate. The algorithm corresponding to this process
converges to R.
If the DUT vendor provides a value for R, the tester can use this
value. In cases where the DUT vendor does not provide a value for R,
or where the tester wants to establish the R of a system using local
media characteristics, the algorithm should be run by setting "r",
the session attempt rate, equal to a value of the tester's choice.
For example, the tester may initialize "r = 100" to start the
algorithm and observe the value at convergence. The algorithm
dynamically increases and decreases "r" as it converges to the
maximum sps value for R. The dynamic increase and decrease rate is
controlled by the weights "w" and "d", respectively.
The pseudocode corresponding to the description above follows, and a
simulation written in the R statistical language is provided in
Appendix A.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
; ---- Parameters of test; adjust as needed
N := 50000 ; Global maximum; once largest session rate has
; been established, send this many requests before
; calling the test a success
m := {...} ; Other attributes that affect testing, such
; as media streams, etc.
r := 100 ; Initial session attempt rate (in sessions/sec).
; Adjust as needed (for example, if DUT can handle
; thousands of calls in steady state, set to
; appropriate value in the thousands).
w := 0.10 ; Traffic increase weight (0 < w <= 1.0)
d := max(0.10, w / 2) ; Traffic decrease weight
; ---- End of parameters of test
proc find_R
R = max_sps(r, m, N) ; Setup r sps, each with m media
; characteristics until N sessions have been attempted.
; Note that if a DUT vendor provides this number, the tester
; can use the number as a Session Attempt Rate, R, instead
; of invoking max_sps()
end proc
; Iterative process to figure out the largest number of
; sps that we can achieve in order to setup n sessions.
; This function converges to R, the Session Attempt Rate.
proc max_sps(r, m, n)
s := 0 ; session setup rate
old_r := 0 ; old session setup rate
h := 0 ; Return value, R
count := 0
; Note that if w is small (say, 0.10) and r is small
; (say, <= 9), the algorithm will not converge since it
; uses floor() to increment r dynamically. It is best
; to start with the defaults (w = 0.10 and r >= 100).
while (TRUE) {
s := send_traffic(r, m, n) ; Send r sps, with m media
; characteristics until n sessions have been attempted.
if (s == n) {
if (r > old_r) {
old_r = r
}
else {
count = count + 1
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
if (count >= 10) {
# We've converged.
h := max(r, old_r)
break
}
}
r := floor(r + (w * r))
}
else {
r := floor(r - (d * r))
d := max(0.10, d / 2)
w := max(0.10, w / 2)
}
}
return h
end proc
5. Reporting Format
5.1. Test Setup Report
SIP Transport Protocol = ___________________________
(valid values: TCP|UDP|TLS|SCTP|websockets|specify-other)
(Specify if same transport used for connections to the DUT
and connections from the DUT. If different transports
used on each connection, enumerate the transports used.)
Connection management strategy for connection oriented
transports
DUT receives requests on one connection = _______
(Yes or no. If no, DUT accepts a new connection for
every incoming request, sends a response on that
connection, and closes the connection.)
DUT sends requests on one connection = __________
(Yes or no. If no, DUT initiates a new connection to
send out each request, gets a response on that
connection, and closes the connection.)
Session Attempt Rate _______________________________
(Session attempts/sec)
(The initial value for "r" in benchmarking algorithm in
Section 4.10.)
Session Duration = _________________________________
(In seconds)
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Total Sessions Attempted = _________________________
(Total sessions to be created over duration of test)
Media Streams per Session = _______________________
(number of streams per session)
Associated Media Protocol = _______________________
(RTP|SRTP|specify-other)
Codec = ____________________________________________
(Codec type as identified by the organization that
specifies the codec)
Media Packet Size (audio only) = __________________
(Number of bytes in an audio packet)
Establishment Threshold time = ____________________
(Seconds)
TLS ciphersuite used
(for tests involving TLS) = ________________________
(e.g., TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA)
IPsec profile used
(For tests involving IPsec) = _____________________
5.2. Device Benchmarks for Session Setup
Session Establishment Rate, "R" = __________________
(sessions per second)
Is DUT acting as a media relay? (yes/no) = _________
5.3. Device Benchmarks for Registrations
Registration Rate = ____________________________
(registrations per second)
Re-registration Rate = ____________________________
(registrations per second)
Notes = ____________________________________________
(List any specific backend processing required or
other parameters that may impact the rate)
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
6. Test Cases
6.1. Baseline Session Establishment Rate of the Testbed
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the Emulated Agent
(EA) with zero failures.
Procedure:
1. Configure the DUT in the test topology shown in Figure 1.
2. Set Media Streams per Session to 0.
3. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the baseline Session Establishment Rate. This rate MUST
be recorded using any pertinent parameters as shown in the
reporting format of Section 5.1.
Expected Results: This is the scenario to obtain the maximum Session
Establishment Rate of the EA and the testbed when no DUT is
present. The results of this test might be used to normalize test
results performed on different testbeds or simply to better
understand the impact of the DUT on the testbed in question.
6.2. Session Establishment Rate without Media
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT with no
Associated Media and zero failures.
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 1 or Figure 2.
2. Set Media Streams per Session to 0.
3. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the Session Establishment Rate. This rate MUST be
recorded using any pertinent parameters as shown in the
reporting format of Section 5.1.
Expected Results: Find the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT
when the EA is not sending media streams.
6.3. Session Establishment Rate with Media Not on DUT
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT with zero
failures when Associated Media is included in the benchmark test
but the media is not running through the DUT.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 1.
2. Set Media Streams per Session to 1.
3. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the session establishment rate with media. This rate MUST
be recorded using any pertinent parameters as shown in the
reporting format of Section 5.1.
Expected Results: Session Establishment Rate results obtained with
Associated Media with any number of media streams per SIP session
are expected to be identical to the Session Establishment Rate
results obtained without media in the case where the DUT is
running on a platform separate from the Media Relay.
6.4. Session Establishment Rate with Media on DUT
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT with zero
failures when Associated Media is included in the benchmark test
and the media is running through the DUT.
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 2.
2. Set Media Streams per Session to 1.
3. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the Session Establishment Rate with media. This rate MUST
be recorded using any pertinent parameters as shown in the
reporting format of Section 5.1.
Expected Results: Session Establishment Rate results obtained with
Associated Media may be lower than those obtained without media in
the case where the DUT and the Media Relay are running on the same
platform. It may be helpful for the tester to be aware of the
reasons for this degradation, although these reasons are not
parameters of the test. For example, the degree of performance
degradation may be due to what the DUT does with the media (e.g.,
relaying vs. transcoding), the type of media (audio vs. video vs.
data), and the codec used for the media. There may also be cases
where there is no performance impact, if the DUT has dedicated
media-path hardware.
6.5. Session Establishment Rate with TLS-Encrypted SIP
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT with zero
failures when using TLS-encrypted SIP signaling.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Procedure:
1. If the DUT is being benchmarked as a proxy or B2BUA, then
configure the DUT in the test topology shown in Figure 1 or
Figure 2.
2. Configure the tester to enable TLS over the transport being
used during benchmarking. Note the ciphersuite being used for
TLS and record it in Section 5.1.
3. Set Media Streams per Session to 0 (media is not used in this
test).
4. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the Session Establishment Rate with TLS encryption.
Expected Results: Session Establishment Rate results obtained with
TLS-encrypted SIP may be lower than those obtained with plaintext
SIP.
6.6. Session Establishment Rate with IPsec-Encrypted SIP
Objective:
To benchmark the Session Establishment Rate of the DUT with zero
failures when using IPsec-encrypted SIP signaling.
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 1 or Figure 2.
2. Set Media Streams per Session to 0 (media is not used in this
test).
3. Configure tester for IPsec. Note the IPsec profile being used
for IPsec and record it in Section 5.1.
4. Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in Section 4.10 to
get the Session Establishment Rate with encryption.
Expected Results: Session Establishment Rate results obtained with
IPsec-encrypted SIP may be lower than those obtained with
plaintext SIP.
6.7. Registration Rate
Objective:
To benchmark the maximum registration rate the DUT can handle over
an extended time period with zero failures.
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 3.
2. Set the registration timeout value to at least 3600 seconds.
3. Each register request MUST be made to a distinct Address of
Record (AoR). Execute benchmarking algorithm as defined in
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Section 4.10 to get the maximum registration rate. This rate
MUST be recorded using any pertinent parameters as shown in
the reporting format of Section 5.1. For example, the use of
TLS or IPsec during registration must be noted in the
reporting format. In the same vein, any specific backend
processing (use of databases, authentication servers, etc.)
SHOULD be recorded as well.
Expected Results: Provides a maximum registration rate.
6.8. Re-registration Rate
Objective:
To benchmark the re-registration rate of the DUT with zero
failures using the same backend processing and parameters used
during Section 6.7.
Procedure:
1. Configure a DUT according to the test topology shown in
Figure 3.
2. Execute the test detailed in Section 6.7 to register the
endpoints with the registrar and obtain the registration rate.
3. After at least 5 minutes of performing Step 2, but no more
than 10 minutes after Step 2 has been performed, re-register
the same AoRs used in Step 3 of Section 6.7. This will count
as a re-registration because the SIP AoRs have not yet
expired.
Expected Results: Note the rate obtained through this test for
comparison with the rate obtained in Section 6.7.
7. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of the
Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to production networks.
Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the media layer
is discussed in RFC 3261, RFC 3550, and RFC 3711, and various other
documents. This document attempts to formalize a set of common
methodology for benchmarking performance of SIP devices in a lab
environment.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7501] Davids, C., Gurbani, V., and S. Poretsky, "Terminology for
Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices:
Basic Session Setup and Registration", RFC 7501, April
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7501>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[Rtool] R Development Core Team, "R: A Language and Environment
for Statistical Computing", R Foundation for Statistical
Computing Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, 2011,
<http://www.R-project.org>.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Appendix A. R Code Component to Simulate Benchmarking Algorithm
# Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
# authors of the code. All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
# without modification, are permitted provided that the following
# conditions are met:
#
# The author of this code is Vijay K. Gurbani.
#
# - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and
# the following disclaimer.
#
# - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
# copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
# disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
# provided with the distribution.
#
# - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust,
# nor the names of specific contributors, may be used to
# endorse or promote products derived from this software
# without specific prior written permission.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
# CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
# INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
# MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
# DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
# CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
# INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
# (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
# GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
# INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
# WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
# NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
# OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
# DAMAGE.
w = 0.10
d = max(0.10, w / 2)
DUT_max_sps = 460 # Change as needed to set the max sps value
# for a DUT
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
# Returns R, given r (initial session attempt rate).
# E.g., assume that a DUT handles 460 sps in steady state
# and you have saved this code in a file simulate.r. Then,
# start an R session and do the following:
#
# > source("simulate.r")
# > find_R(100)
# ... debug output omitted ...
# [1] 458
#
# Thus, the max sps that the DUT can handle is 458 sps, which is
# close to the absolute maximum of 460 sps the DUT is specified to
# do.
find_R <- function(r) {
s = 0
old_r = 0
h = 0
count = 0
# Note that if w is small (say, 0.10) and r is small
# (say, <= 9), the algorithm will not converge since it
# uses floor() to increment r dynamically. It is best
# to start with the defaults (w = 0.10 and r >= 100).
cat("r old_r w d \n")
while (TRUE) {
cat(r, ' ', old_r, ' ', w, ' ', d, '\n')
s = send_traffic(r)
if (s == TRUE) { # All sessions succeeded
if (r > old_r) {
old_r = r
}
else {
count = count + 1
if (count >= 10) {
# We've converged.
h = max(r, old_r)
break
}
}
r = floor(r + (w * r))
}
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
else {
r = floor(r - (d * r))
d = max(0.10, d / 2)
w = max(0.10, w / 2)
}
}
h
}
send_traffic <- function(r) {
n = TRUE
if (r > DUT_max_sps) {
n = FALSE
}
n
}
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Keith Drage and Daryl Malas for their
contributions to this document. Dale Worley provided an extensive
review that led to improvements in the documents. We are grateful to
Barry Constantine, William Cerveny, and Robert Sparks for providing
valuable comments during the documents' last calls and expert
reviews. Al Morton and Sarah Banks have been exemplary working group
chairs; we thank them for tracking this work to completion. Tom
Taylor provided an in-depth review and subsequent comments on the
benchmarking convergence algorithm in Section 4.10.
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 7502 SIP Benchmarking Methodology April 2015
Authors' Addresses
Carol Davids
Illinois Institute of Technology
201 East Loop Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
United States
Phone: +1 630 682 6024
EMail: davids@iit.edu
Vijay K. Gurbani
Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane
Rm 9C-533
Naperville, IL 60566
United States
Phone: +1 630 224 0216
EMail: vkg@bell-labs.com
Scott Poretsky
Allot Communications
300 TradeCenter, Suite 4680
Woburn, MA 08101
United States
Phone: +1 508 309 2179
EMail: sporetsky@allot.com
Davids, et al. Informational [Page 21]
ERRATA
