Skip to main content

Traffic Management Benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7640.
Authors Barry Constantine , Timothy Copley , Ramki Krishnan
Last updated 2014-11-17
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7640 (Informational)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01
Network Working Group                                     B. Constantine
Internet Draft                                                      JDSU
Intended status: Informational                                 T. Copley
Expires: May 2015                                                Level-3
November 12, 2014                                            R. Krishnan
                                                  Brocade Communications

                      Traffic Management Benchmarking
                      draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt

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 12, 2015.

Constantine                    November 12, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.

Abstract 

   This framework describes a practical methodology for benchmarking the 
   traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing,
   shaping, etc.). The goal is to provide a repeatable test method that
   objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management
   capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management
   with representative application traffic.

Constantine                  November 12, 2014                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................4
      1.1. Traffic Management Overview...............................4
      1.2. DUT Lab Configuration and Testing Overview................5
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................7
   3. Scope and Goals................................................8
   4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics...................................9
      4.1. Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests.......................9
      4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests.......................11
   5. Tester Capabilities...........................................11
      5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation........................11
      5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation.........................12
         5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions........................13
   6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology..............................15
      6.1. Policing Tests...........................................15
      6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests................................15
          6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests..............................16
          6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port..........16
          6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports..............17
          6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports............17
      6.2. Queue/Scheduler Tests....................................17
      6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests........................17
          6.2.1.1 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic....17
          6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic.....18
        6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests......................19
          6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active..............19
          6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port..................19
          6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ).....19
          6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active..........19
          6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active........20
      6.3. Shaper tests.............................................20
        6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests...............................20
          6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic.............20
          6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic..............21
        6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests.................................22
          6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active....22
          6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active.............22
          6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active...............22
      6.4. Concurrent Capacity Load Tests...........................24
   7. Security Considerations.......................................24
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................24
   9. Conclusions...................................................24
   10. References...................................................24
      10.1. Normative References....................................25
      10.2. Informative References..................................25
   11. Acknowledgments..............................................25

Constantine                       November 12, 2014             [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

1. Introduction

   Traffic management (i.e. policing, shaping, etc.) is an increasingly
   important component when implementing network Quality of Service 
   (QoS).  

   There is currently no framework to benchmark these features
   although some standards address specific areas which are described 
   in Section 1.1. 

   This draft provides a framework to conduct repeatable traffic 
   management benchmarks for devices and systems in a lab environment.  
   
   Specifically, this framework defines the methods to characterize 
   the capacity of the following traffic management features in network 
   devices; classification, policing, queuing / scheduling, and 
   traffic shaping. 
   
   This benchmarking framework can also be used as a test procedure to 
   assist in the tuning of traffic management parameters before service
   activation. In addition to Layer 2/3 (Ethernet / IP) benchmarking, 
   Layer 4 (TCP) test patterns are proposed by this draft in order to 
   more realistically benchmark end-user traffic. 

1.1. Traffic Management Overview

   In general, a device with traffic management capabilities performs
   the following functions:

  - Traffic classification: identifies traffic according to various 
    configuration rules for example IEEE 802.1Q Virtual LAN (VLAN),
    Differential Services Code Point (DSCP) etc. and marks this traffic
    internally to the network device. Multiple external priorities 
    (DSCP, 802.1p, etc.) can map to the same priority in the device.
  - Traffic policing: limits the rate of traffic that enters a network 
    device according to the traffic classification.  If the traffic 
    exceeds the provisioned  limits, the traffic is either dropped or 
    remarked and forwarded onto to the next network device
  - Traffic Scheduling: provides traffic classification within the 
    network device by directing packets to various types of queues and
    applies a dispatching algorithm to assign the forwarding sequence 
    of packets
  - Traffic shaping: a traffic control technique that actively buffers
    and smooths the output rate in an attempt to adapt bursty traffic
    to the configured limits
  - Active Queue Management (AQM): 
    AQM involves monitoring the status of internal queues and proactively
    dropping (or remarking) packets, which causes hosts using
    congestion-aware protocols to back-off and in turn alleviate queue
    congestion [AQM-RECO].  On the other hand, classic traffic management
    techniques reactively drop (or remark) packets based on queue full
    condition. The benchmarking scenarios for AQM are different and is
    outside of the scope of this testing framework.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014             [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   The following diagram is a generic model of the traffic management
   capabilities within a network device.  It is not intended to
   represent all variations of manufacturer traffic management
   capabilities, but provide context to this test framework.

   |----------|   |----------------|   |--------------|   |----------|
   |          |   |                |   |              |   |          |
   |Interface |   |Ingress Actions |   |Egress Actions|   |Interface |
   |Input     |   |(classification,|   |(scheduling,  |   |Output    |
   |Queues    |   | marking,       |   | shaping,     |   |Queues    |
   |          |-->| policing or    |-->| active queue |-->|          |
   |          |   | shaping)       |   | management   |   |          |
   |          |   |                |   | remarking)   |   |          |
   |----------|   |----------------|   |--------------|   |----------|

   Figure 1: Generic Traffic Management capabilities of a Network Device

   Ingress actions such as classification are defined in RFC 4689 [RFC4689]
   and include IP addresses, port numbers, DSCP, etc.  In terms of marking,
   RFC 2697 [RFC2697] and RFC 2698 [RFC2698] define a single rate and dual
   rate, three color marker, respectively.
   
   The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) specifies policing and shaping in terms 
   of Ingress and Egress Subscriber/Provider Conditioning Functions in 
   MEF12.1 [MEF-12.1]; Ingress and Bandwidth Profile attributes in MEF10.2
   [MEF-10.2] and MEF 26 [MEF-26].

1.2 Lab Configuration and Testing Overview

   The following is the description of the lab set-up for the traffic
   management tests:

    +--------------+     +-------+     +----------+    +-----------+
    | Transmitting |     |       |     |          |    | Receiving |
    | Test Host    |     |       |     |          |    | Test Host |
    |              |-----| Device|---->| Network  |--->|           |                          
    |              |     | Under |     | Delay    |    |           |
    |              |     | Test  |     | Emulator |    |           |
    |              |<----|       |<----|          |<---|           |
    |              |     |       |     |          |    |           |
    +--------------+     +-------+     +----------+    +-----------+

   As shown in the test diagram, the framework supports uni-directional 
   and bi-directional traffic management tests (where the transmitting
   and receiving roles would be reversed on the return path).

Constantine                       November 12, 2014             [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   This testing framework describes the tests and metrics for each of 
   the following traffic management functions:
   - Policing
   - Queuing / Scheduling
   - Shaping
   
   The tests are divided into individual and rated capacity tests.
   The individual tests are intended to benchmark the traffic management 
   functions according to the metrics defined in Section 4.  The 
   capacity tests verify traffic management functions under the load of 
   many simultaneous individual tests and their flows.

   This involves concurrent testing of multiple interfaces with the 
   specific traffic management function enabled, and increasing load to
   the capacity limit of each interface.  
   
   As an example: a device is specified to be capable of shaping on all
   of its egress ports. The individual test would first be conducted to
   benchmark the specified shaping function against the metrics defined
   in section 4.  Then the capacity test would be executed to test the 
   shaping function concurrently on all interfaces and with maximum 
   traffic load.
   
   The Network Delay Emulator (NDE) is required for TCP stateful tests
   in order to allow TCP to utilize a significant size TCP window in its
   control loop.

   Also note that the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) should be passive in
   nature such as a fiber spool.  This is recommended to eliminate the
   potential effects that an active delay element (i.e. test impairment
   generator) may have on the test flows.  In the case where a fiber 
   spool is not practical due to the desired latency, an active NDE must
   be independently verified to be capable of adding the configured delay
   without loss.  In other words, the DUT would be removed and the NDE
   performance benchmarked independently.
   
   Note the NDE should be used in "full pipe" delay mode. Most NDEs
   allow for per flow delay actions, emulating QoS prioritization.  For 
   this framework, the NDE's sole purpose is simply to add delay to all
   packets (emulate network latency). So to benchmark the performance of
   the NDE, maximum offered load should be tested against the following
   frame sizes: 128, 256, 512, 768, 1024, 1500,and 9600 bytes. The delay 
   accuracy at each of these packet sizes can then be used to calibrate
   the range of expected Bandwidth Delay Product (BDP) for the TCP stateful
   tests.

   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014             [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

2. Conventions used in this document

   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].

   The following acronyms are used:

   AQM: Active Queue Management

   BB: Bottleneck Bandwidth
   
   BDP: Bandwidth Delay Product
   
   BSA: Burst Size Achieved

   CBS: Committed Burst Size

   CIR: Committed Information Rate

   DUT: Device Under Test

   EBS: Excess Burst Size

   EIR: Excess Information Rate
   
   NDE: Network Delay Emulator
   
   SP: Strict Priority Queuing
   
   QL: Queue Length

   QoS: Quality of Service

   RTH: Receiving Test Host

   RTT: Round Trip Time
   
   SBB: Shaper Burst Bytes
   
   SBI: Shaper Burst Interval
   
   SR: Shaper Rate
   
   SSB: Send Socket Buffer
      
   Tc: CBS Time Interval
   
   Te: EBS Time Interval
   
   Ti Transmission Interval

   TTH: Transmitting Test Host
   
Constantine                 November 12, 2014                   [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   TTP: TCP Test Pattern
   
   TTPET: TCP Test Pattern Execution Time

3. Scope and Goals

   The scope of this work is to develop a framework for benchmarking and
   testing the traffic management capabilities of network devices in the
   lab environment.  These network devices may include but are not
   limited to:
   - Switches (including Layer 2/3 devices)
   - Routers
   - Firewalls
   - General Layer 4-7 appliances (Proxies, WAN Accelerators, etc.)

   Essentially, any network device that performs traffic management as
   defined in section 1.1 can be benchmarked or tested with this
   framework.
   
   The primary goal is to assess the maximum forwarding performance deemed
   to be within the provisioned traffic limits that a network device can
   sustain without dropping or impairing packets, or compromising the
   accuracy of multiple instances of traffic management functions. This
   is the benchmark for comparison between devices.
   
   Within this framework, the metrics are defined for each traffic
   management test but do not include pass / fail criterion, which is
   not within the charter of BMWG.  This framework provides the test
   methods and metrics to conduct repeatable testing, which will
   provide the means to compare measured performance between DUTs.

   As mentioned in section 1.2, these methods describe the individual
   tests and metrics for several management functions. It is also within
   scope that this framework will benchmark each function in terms of 
   overall rated capacity.  This involves concurrent testing of multiple 
   interfaces with the specific traffic management function enabled, up 
   to the capacity limit of each interface.
   
   It is not within scope of this of this framework to specify the 
   procedure for testing multiple configurations of traffic management
   functions concurrently.  The multitudes of possible combinations is
   almost unbounded and the ability to identify functional "break points"
   would be almost impossible.

   However, section 6.4 provides suggestions for some profiles of
   concurrent functions that would be useful to benchmark.  The key
   requirement for any concurrent test function is that tests must
   produce reliable and repeatable results.

Constantine                 November 12, 2014                   [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014  
   
   Also, it is not within scope to perform conformance testing. Tests
   defined in this framework benchmark the traffic management functions
   according to the metrics defined in section 4 and do not address any
   conformance to standards related to traffic management.  The current 
   specifications don't specify exact behavior or implementation and the
   specifications that do exist (cited in section 1.1) allow 
   implementations to vary w.r.t. short term rate accuracy and other 
   factors. This is a primary driver for this framework with the key 
   goal to provide an objective means to compare vendor traffic
   management functions.
   
   Another goal is to devise methods that utilize flows with 
   congestion-aware transport (TCP) as part of the traffic load and
   still produce repeatable results in the isolated test environment.
   This framework will derive stateful test patterns (TCP or 
   application layer) that can also be used to further benchmark the
   performance of applicable traffic management techniques such as 
   queuing / scheduling and traffic shaping. In cases where the
   network device is stateful in nature (i.e. firewall, etc.), 
   stateful test pattern traffic is important to test along with 
   stateless, UDP traffic in specific test scenarios (i.e. 
   applications using TCP transport and UDP VoIP, etc.)

   As mentioned earlier in the document, repeatability of test results
   is critical, especially considering the nature of stateful TCP traffic.
   To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns to emulate
   applications.  This framework also provides guidelines for application
   modeling and open source tools to achieve the repeatable stimulus.
   And finally, TCP metrics from RFC 6349 are specified to report for
   each stateful test and provide the means to compare each repeated
   test.

4. Traffic Benchmarking Metrics

   The metrics to be measured during the benchmarks are divided into two
   (2) sections: packet layer metrics used for the stateless traffic
   testing and TCP layer metrics used for the stateful traffic 
   testing.

4.1.  Metrics for Stateless Traffic Tests

   Stateless traffic measurements require that sequence number and 
   time-stamp be inserted into the payload for lost packet analysis. 
   Delay analysis may be achieved by insertion of timestamps directly
   into the packets or timestamps stored elsewhere (packet captures).
   This framework does not specify the packet format to carry sequence
   number or timing information.  
   
   However, RFC 4737 [RFC4737] and RFC 4689 provide recommendations
   for sequence tracking along with definitions of in-sequence and
   out-of-order packets.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014             [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   The following are the metrics to be used during the stateless traffic
   benchmarking components of the tests:

   - Burst Size Achieved (BSA): for the traffic policing and network
   queue tests, the tester will be configured to send bursts to test
   either the Committed Burst Size (CBS) or Excess Burst Size (EBS) of
   a policer or the queue / buffer size configured in the DUT.  The
   Burst Size Achieved metric is a measure of the actual burst size
   received at the egress port of the DUT with no lost packets.  As an
   example, the configured CBS of a DUT is 64KB and after the burst test,
   only a 63 KB can be achieved without packet loss.  Then 63KB is the
   BSA.  Also, the average Packet Delay Variation (PDV see below) as 
   experienced by the packets sent at the BSA burst size should be
   recorded.   

   - Lost Packets (LP): For all traffic management tests, the tester will
   transmit the test packets into the DUT ingress port and the number of
   packets received at the egress port will be measured.  The difference
   between packets transmitted into the ingress port and received at the
   egress port is the number of lost packets as measured at the egress
   port.  These packets must have unique identifiers such that only the
   test packets are measured.  For cases where multiple flows are
   transmitted from ingress to egress port (e.g. IP conversations), each
   flow must have sequence numbers within the test packets stream.

   RFC 4737 and RFC 2680 [RFC2680] describe the need to to establish the
   time threshold to wait before a packet is declared as lost. packet as
   lost, and this threshold MUST be reported with the results.

   - Out of Sequence (OOS): in additions to the LP metric, the test
   packets must be monitored for sequence and the out-of-sequence (OOS)
   packets. RFC 4689 defines the general function of sequence tracking, as 
   well as definitions for in-sequence and out-of-order packets.  Out-of-
   order packets will be counted per RFC 4737 and RFC 2680.

   - Packet Delay (PD): the Packet Delay metric is the difference between
   the timestamp of the received egress port packets and the packets
   transmitted into the ingress port and specified in RFC 2285.  The 
   transmitting host and receiving host time must be in time sync using
   NTP , GPS, etc.
 
   - Packet Delay Variation (PDV): the Packet Delay Variation metric is
   the variation between the timestamp of the received egress port
   packets and specified in RFC 5481.  Note that per RFC 5481, this PDV
   is the variation of one-way delay across many packets in the traffic
   flow.

   - Shaper Rate (SR): the Shaper Rate is only applicable to the 
   traffic shaping tests.  The SR represents the average egress output
   rate (bps) over the test interval.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   - Shaper Burst Bytes (SBB): the Shaper Burst Bytes is only applicable
   to the traffic shaping tests.  A traffic shaper will emit packets in
   different size "trains" (bytes back-to-back).  This metric
   characterizes the method by which the shaper emits traffic. Some
   shapers transmit larger bursts per interval, and a burst of 1 packet
   would apply to the extreme case of a shaper sending a CBR stream of
   single packets.
   
   - Shaper Burst Interval(SBI):  the interval is only applicable to the 
   traffic shaping tests and again is the time between shaper emitted
   bursts.
   
4.2. Metrics for Stateful Traffic Tests

   The stateful metrics will be based on RFC 6349 [RFC 6349] TCP metrics and will
   include:

   - TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET): RFC 6349 defined the TCP 
   Transfer Time for bulk transfers, which is simply the measured time 
   to transfer bytes across single or concurrent TCP connections. The
   TCP test patterns used in traffic management tests will include bulk
   transfer and interactive applications.  The interactive patterns include
   instances such as HTTP business applications, database applications, 
   etc.  The TTPET will be the measure of the time for a single execution
   of a TCP Test Pattern (TTP). Average, minimum, and maximum times will 
   be measured or calculated.
   
   An example would be an interactive HTTP TTP session which should take 
   5 seconds on a GigE network with 0.5 millisecond latency. During ten (10) 
   executions of this TTP, the TTPET results might be: average of 6.5 
   seconds, minimum of 5.0 seconds, and maximum of 7.9 seconds.

   - TCP Efficiency: after the execution of the TCP Test Pattern, TCP
   Efficiency represents the percentage of Bytes that were not
   retransmitted.

                          Transmitted Bytes - Retransmitted Bytes

      TCP Efficiency % =  ---------------------------------------  X 100

                                   Transmitted Bytes

   Transmitted Bytes are the total number of TCP Bytes to be transmitted
   including the original and the retransmitted Bytes.  These retransmitted
   bytes should be recorded from the sender's TCP/IP stack perspective,
   to avoid any misinterpretation that a reordered packet is a retransmitted
   packet (as may be the case with packet decode interpretation).   

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   - Buffer Delay: represents the increase in RTT during a TCP test
   versus the baseline DUT RTT (non congested, inherent latency).  RTT 
   and the technique to measure RTT (average versus baseline) are defined
   in RFC 6349.  Referencing RFC 6349, the average RTT is derived from 
   the total of all measured RTTs during the actual test sampled at every
   second divided by the test duration in seconds.

                                         Total RTTs during transfer
         Average RTT during transfer = -----------------------------
                                        Transfer duration in seconds

                        Average RTT during Transfer - Baseline RTT
       Buffer Delay % = ------------------------------------------ X 100
                                    Baseline RTT
        
    Note that even though this was not explicitly stated in RFC 6349, 
    retransmitted packets should not be used in RTT measurements.
        
    Also, the test results should record the average RTT in millisecond 
        across the entire test duration and number of samples.

5. Tester Capabilities

    The testing capabilities of the traffic management test environment
    are divided into two (2) sections: stateless traffic testing and
    stateful traffic testing

5.1. Stateless Test Traffic Generation

   The test device must be capable of generating traffic at up to the
   link speed of the DUT.  The test device must be calibrated to verify
   that it will not drop any packets.  The test device's inherent PD and
   PDV must also be calibrated and subtracted from the PD and PDV metrics.
   The test device must support the encapsulation to be tested such as
   IEEE 802.1Q VLAN, IEEE 802.1ad Q-in-Q, Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS), etc.  Also, the test device must allow control of the 
   classification techniques defined in RFC 4689 (i.e. IP address, DSCP,
   TOS, etc classification).

   The open source tool "iperf" can be used to generate stateless UDP
   traffic and is discussed in Appendix A.  Since iperf is a software
   based tool, there will be performance limitations at higher link
   speeds (e.g. GigE, 10 GigE, etc.).  Careful calibration of any test
   environment using iperf is important.  At higher link speeds, it is
   recommended to use hardware based packet test equipment.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

5.1.1 Burst Hunt with Stateless Traffic

   A central theme for the traffic management tests is to benchmark the 
   specified burst parameter of traffic management function, since burst
   parameters of SLAs are specified in bytes.  For testing efficiency,
   it is recommended to include a burst hunt feature, which automates
   the manual process of determining the maximum burst size which can
   be supported by a traffic management function.
   
   The burst hunt algorithm should start at the target burst size (maximum
   burst size supported by the traffic management function) and will send 
   single bursts until it can determine the largest burst that can pass
   without loss.  If the target burst size passes, then the test is 
   complete.  The hunt aspect occurs when the target burst size is not 
   achieved; the algorithm will drop down to a configured minimum burst
   size and incrementally increase the burst until the maximum burst 
   supported by the DUT is discovered.  The recommended granularity
   of the incremental burst size increase is 1 KB.
   
   Optionally for a policer function and if the burst size passes, the burst
   should be increased by increments of 1 KB to verify that the policer is
   truly configured properly (or enabled at all).  

5.2. Stateful Test Pattern Generation

   The TCP test host will have many of the same attributes as the TCP test
   host defined in RFC 6349.  The TCP test device may be a standard
   computer or a dedicated communications test instrument. In both cases,
   it must be capable of emulating both a client and a server.

   For any test using stateful TCP test traffic, the Network Delay Emulator
   (NDE function from the lab set-up diagram) must be used in order to 
   provide a meaningful BDP.  As referenced in section 2, the target
   traffic rate and configured RTT must be verified independently using
   just the NDE for all stateful tests (to ensure the NDE can delay without
   loss).

   The TCP test host must be capable to generate and receive stateful TCP
   test traffic at the full link speed of the DUT.  As a general rule of
   thumb, testing TCP Throughput at rates greater than 500 Mbps may require
   high performance server hardware or dedicated hardware based test tools.

   The TCP test host must allow adjusting both Send and Receive Socket
   Buffer sizes.  The Socket Buffers must be large enough to fill the BDP
   for bulk transfer TCP test application traffic.

   Measuring RTT and retransmissions per connection will generally require
   a dedicated communications test instrument. In the absence of
   dedicated hardware based test tools, these measurements may need to be
   conducted with packet capture tools, i.e. conduct TCP Throughput
   tests and analyze RTT and retransmissions in packet captures.

   The TCP implementation used by the test host must be specified in the
   test results (e.g. TCP New Reno,
   TCP options supported, etc.).

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   While RFC 6349 defined the means to conduct throughput tests of TCP bulk
   transfers, the traffic management framework will extend TCP test
   execution into interactive TCP application traffic.  Examples include
   email, HTTP, business applications, etc.  This interactive traffic is
   bi-directional and can be chatty.

   The test device must not only support bulk TCP transfer application
   traffic but also chatty traffic.  A valid stress test SHOULD include
   both traffic types. This is due to the non-uniform, bursty nature of 
   chatty applications versus the relatively uniform nature of bulk 
   transfers (the bulk transfer smoothly stabilizes to equilibrium state 
   under lossless conditions).

   While iperf is an excellent choice for TCP bulk transfer testing, the
   netperf open source tool provides the ability to control the client
   and server request / response behavior.  The netperf-wrapper tool is
   a Python wrapper to run multiple simultaneous netperf instances and
   aggregate the results.  Appendix A provides an overview of netperf /
   netperf-wrapper and another open source application emulation,
   Flowgrind. As with any software based tool, the performance must be 
   qualified to the link speed to be tested.  Hardware-based test
   equipment should be considered for reliable results at higher links
   speeds (e.g. 1 GigE, 10 GigE).

5.2.1. TCP Test Pattern Definitions

   As mentioned in the goals of this framework, techniques are defined
   to specify TCP traffic test patterns to benchmark traffic
   management technique(s) and produce repeatable results. Some
   network devices such as firewalls, will not process stateless test
   traffic which is another reason why stateful TCP test traffic must
   be used.

   An application could be fully emulated up to Layer 7, however this 
   framework proposes that stateful TCP test patterns be used in order
   to provide granular and repeatable control for the benchmarks. The 
   following diagram illustrates a simple Web Browsing application 
   (HTTP).

                   GET url

   Client      ------------------------>   Web

   Web             200 OK        100ms |

   Browser     <------------------------    Server

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   In this example, the Client Web Browser (Client) requests a URL and
   then the Web Server delivers the web page content to the Client
   (after a Server delay of 100 millisecond).  This asynchronous,
   "request/response" behavior is intrinsic to most TCP based
   applications such as Email (SMTP), File Transfers (FTP and SMB),
   Database (SQL), Web Applications (SOAP), REST, etc.  The impact to
   the network elements is due to the multitudes of Clients and the
   variety of bursty traffic, which stresses traffic management functions.
   The actual emulation of the specific application protocols is not
   required and TCP test patterns can be defined to mimic the
   application network traffic flows and produce repeatable results.
   
   Application modeling techniques have been proposed in 
   "3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0" and provides examples to model the behavior of
   HTTP, FTP, and WAP applications at the TCP layer. The models have
   been defined with various mathematical distributions for the
   Request/Response bytes and inter-request gap times.  

   This framework does not specify a fixed set of TCP test patterns, but
   does provide recommended test cases in Appendix B.  Some of these
   examples reflect those specified in "draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-04"
   which suggests traffic mixes for a variety of representative
   application profiles.  Other examples are simply well-known
   application traffic types such as HTTP.
   
6. Traffic Benchmarking Methodology

   The traffic benchmarking methodology uses the test set-up from
   section 2 and metrics defined in section 4. 
   
   Each test should compare the network device's internal statistics 
   (available via command line management interface, SNMP, etc.) to the
   measured metrics defined in section 4.  This evaluates the accuracy
   of the internal traffic management counters under individual test
   conditions and capacity test conditions that are defined in each 
   subsection.
   
   From a device configuration standpoint, scheduling and shaping
   functionality can be applied to logical ports such Link Aggregation
   (LAG). This would result in the same scheduling and shaping
   configuration applied to all the member physical ports. The focus of
   this draft is only on tests at a physical port level.

   The following sections provide the objective, procedure, metrics, and
   reporting format for each test.  For all test steps, the following
   global parameters must be specified:

   Test Runs (Tr). Defines the number of times the test needs to be run
   to ensure accurate and repeatable results.  The recommended value is 3.

   Test Duration (Td). Defines the duration of a test iteration, expressed
   in seconds.  The recommended value it 60 seconds.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.1. Policing Tests

   Policer is defined as the entity performing the policy function. The
   intent of the policing tests is to verify the policer performance
   (i.e. CIR-CBS and EIR-EBS parameters). The tests will verify that the
   network device can handle the CIR with CBS and the EIR with EBS and
   will use back-back packet testing concepts from RFC 2544 (but adapted
   to burst size algorithms and terminology).  Also MEF-14,19,37 provide
   some basis for specific components of this test.  The burst hunt
   algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to automate the
   measurement of the CBS value.
   
   The tests are divided into two (2) sections; individual policer
   tests and then full capacity policing tests. It is important to 
   benchmark the basic functionality of the individual policer then 
   proceed into the fully rated capacity of the device. This capacity may
   include the number of policing policies per device and the number of
   policers simultaneously active across all ports.

6.1.1 Policer Individual Tests

   Objective: 
   Test a policer as defined by RFC 4115 or MEF 10.2, depending upon the
   equipment's specification.  In addition to verifying that the policer
   allows the specified CBS and EBS bursts to pass, the policer test MUST
   verify that the policer will remark or drop excess, and pass traffic at
   the specified CBS/EBS values.

   Test Summary:
   Policing tests should use stateless traffic. Stateful TCP test traffic 
   will generally be adversely affected by a policer in the absence of
   traffic shaping.  So while TCP traffic could be used, it is more
   accurate to benchmark a policer with stateless traffic.

   As an example for RFC 4115, consider a CBS and EBS of 64KB and CIR and
   EIR of 100 Mbps on a 1GigE physical link (in color-blind mode).  A
   stateless traffic burst of 64KB would be sent into the policer at the
   GigE rate. This equates to approximately a 0.512 millisecond burst
   time (64 KB at 1 GigE). The traffic generator must space these bursts
   to ensure that the aggregate throughput does not exceed the CIR. The
   Ti between the bursts would equal CBS * 8 / CIR = 5.12 millisecond
   in this example.   

   Test Metrics:
   The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
   be measured at the egress port and recorded.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   Procedure:
   1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
      CBS/EBS values to be tested

   2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
      to CBS and an interval equal to Ti (CBS in bits / CIR)

   3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS  + EBS traffic into
      the policer ingress port and measure the metrics defined in 
      section 4.1 (BSA, LP. OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress port and across
      the entire Td (default 60 seconds duration)

   4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS limit
      traffic into the policer ingress port and verify that the policer
      only allowed the BSA bytes to exit the egress. The excess burst MUST 
      be recorded and the recommended value is 1000 bytes. Additional tests
      beyond the simple color-blind example might include: color-aware mode,
      configurations where EIR is greater than CIR, etc.

   Reporting Format:
   The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
   CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run and a recommended format is as follows:

   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary:  Tr, Td

   DUT Configuration Summary:  CIR, EIR, CBS, EBS

   The results table should contain entries for each test run, (Test #1
   to Test #Tr).

   Compliant Traffic Test:  BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV

   Excess Traffic Test:  BSA
   ********************************************************

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.1.2 Policer Capacity Tests

   Objective:
   The intent of the capacity tests is to verify the policer performance
   in a scaled environment with multiple ingress customer policers on 
   multiple physical ports.  This test will benchmark the maximum number 
   of active policers as specified by the device manufacturer. 

   Test Summary:
   The specified policing function capacity is generally expressed in
   terms of the number of policers active on each individual physical
   port as well as the number of unique policer rates that are utilized.
   For all of the capacity tests, the benchmarking test procedure and
   report format described in Section 6.1.1 for a single policer MUST
   be applied to each of the physical port policers.

   As an example, a Layer 2 switching device may specify that each of the
   32 physical ports can be policed using a pool of policing service 
   policies.  The device may carry a single customer's traffic on each 
   physical port and a single policer is instantiated per physical port.
   Another possibility is that a single physical port may carry multiple
   customers, in which case many customer flows would be policed
   concurrently on an individual physical port (separate policers per
   customer on an individual port).  

   Test Metrics:
   The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
   be measured at the egress port and recorded.

   The following sections provide the specific test scenarios,
   procedures, and reporting formats for each policer capacity test.
   
6.1.2.1 Maximum Policers on Single Physical Port Test
   
   Test Summary:
   The first policer capacity test will benchmark a single physical port, 
   maximum policers on that physical port.

   Assume multiple categories of ingress policers at rates r1, r2,...rn.
   There are multiple customers on a single physical port. Each customer
   could be represented by a single tagged vlan, double tagged vlan,
   VPLS instance etc. Each customer is mapped to a different policer.
   Each of the policers can be of rates r1, r2,..., rn.

   An example configuration would be
   - Y1 customers, policer rate r1
   - Y2 customers, policer rate r2
   - Y3 customers, policer rate r3
   ...
   - Yn customers, policer rate rn

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   Some bandwidth on the physical port is dedicated for other traffic (non 
   customer traffic); this includes network control protocol traffic. There 
   is a separate policer for the other traffic. Typical deployments have 3 
   categories of policers; there may be some deployments with more or less
   than 3 categories of ingress policers.

   Test Procedure:
   1. Configure the DUT policing parameters for the desired CIR/EIR and
      CBS/EBS values for each policer rate (r1-rn) to be tested

   2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal to
      CBS and an interval equal to TI (CBS in bits/CIR) for each customer
      stream (Y1 - Yn).  The encapsulation for each customer must also be
      configured according to the service tested (VLAN, VPLS, IP mapping,
      etc.).

   3. Compliant Traffic Step: Generate bursts of CBS + EBS traffic into the
      policer ingress port for each customer traffic stream and measure the
      metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the
      egress port for each stream and across the entire Td (default 30
      seconds duration)

   4. Excess Traffic Test: Generate bursts of greater than CBS + EBS limit
      traffic into the policer ingress port for each customer traffic
      stream and verify that the policer only allowed the BSA bytes to exit
      the egress for each stream.  The excess burst MUST recorded and the
      recommended value is 1000 bytes.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   Reporting Format:
   The policer individual report MUST contain all results for each
   CIR/EIR/CBS/EBS test run, per customer traffic stream.  

   A recommended format is as follows:

   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary:  Tr, Td

   Customer traffic stream Encapsulation:  Map each stream to VLAN,
   VPLS, IP address

   DUT Configuration Summary per Customer Traffic Stream:  CIR, EIR,
   CBS, EBS

   The results table should contain entries for each test run, (Test #1
   to Test #Tr).

   Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Compliant Traffic Test:  BSA, LP,
   OOS, PD, and PDV

   Customer Stream Y1-Yn (see note), Excess Traffic Test:  BSA
   ********************************************************

   Note: For each test run, there will be a two (2) rows for each
   customer stream, the compliant traffic result and the excess traffic
   result.

6.1.2.2 Single Policer on All Physical Ports

   Test Summary:
   The second policer capacity test involves a single Policer function per 
   physical port with all physical ports active. In this test, there is a 
   single policer per physical port. The policer can have one of the rates 
   r1, r2,.., rn. All the physical ports in the networking device are 
   active. 

   Procedure:
   The procedure is identical to 6.1.1, the configured parameters must be
   reported per port and the test report must include results per
   measured egress port

6.1.2.3 Maximum Policers on All Physical Ports

   Finally the third policer capacity test involves a combination of the 
   first and second capacity test, namely maximum policers active per 
   physical port and all physical ports are active.

   Procedure:
   Uses the procedural method from 6.1.2.1 and the configured parameters
   must be reported per port and the test report must include per stream
   results per measured egress port.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.2. Queue and Scheduler Tests

   Queues and traffic Scheduling are closely related in that a queue's 
   priority dictates the manner in which the traffic scheduler 
   transmits packets out of the egress port.

   Since device queues / buffers are generally an egress function, this
   test framework will discuss testing at the egress (although the
   technique can be applied to ingress side queues).

   Similar to the policing tests, the tests are divided into two  
   sections; individual queue/scheduler function tests and then full
   capacity tests.

6.2.1 Queue/Scheduler Individual Tests Overview

   The various types of scheduling techniques include FIFO, Strict 
   Priority (SP), Weighted Fair Queueing (WFQ) along with other 
   variations.  This test framework recommends to test at a minimum
   of three techniques although it is the discretion of the tester
   to benchmark other device scheduling algorithms.

6.2.1.1 Queue/Scheduler with Stateless Traffic Test

   Objective:
   Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can
   handle stateless traffic bursts up to the queue depth.

   Test Summary:
   A network device queue is memory based unlike a policing function,
   which is token or credit based.  However, the same concepts from
   section 6.1 can be applied to testing network device queues.

   The device's network queue should be configured to the desired size
   in KB (queue length, QL) and then stateless traffic should be
   transmitted to test this QL.

   A queue should be able to handle repetitive bursts with the 
   transmission gaps proportional to the bottleneck bandwidth.  This
   gap is referred to as the transmission interval (Ti).  Ti can 
   be defined for the traffic bursts and is based off of the QL and 
   Bottleneck Bandwidth (BB) of the egress interface. 

   Ti = QL * 8 / BB

   Note that this equation is similar to the Ti required for transmission
   into a policer (QL = CBS, BB = CIR).  Also note that the burst hunt
   algorithm defined in section 5.1.1 can also be used to automate the
   measurement of the queue value.
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   The stateless traffic burst shall be transmitted at the link speed 
   and spaced within the Ti time interval. The metrics defined in section
   4.1 shall be measured at the egress port and recorded; the primary 
   result is to verify the BSA and that no packets are dropped.
   
   The scheduling function must also be characterized to benchmark the
   device's ability to schedule the queues according to the priority.
   An example would be 2 levels of priority including SP and FIFO
   queueing.  Under a flow load greater the egress port speed, the
   higher priority packets should be transmitted without drops (and
   also maintain low latency), while the lower priority (or best
   effort) queue may be dropped.

   Test Metrics: 
   The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
   be measured at the egress port and recorded.

   Procedure:
   1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
      (FIFO, SP, etc) parameters

   2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
      to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)

   3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the
      metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) at the egress
      port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration)

   Report Format:
   The Queue/Scheduler Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain
   all results for each QL/BB test run and a recommended format is as
   follows:

   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary:  Tr, Td

   DUT Configuration Summary:  Scheduling technique, BB and QL

   The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows,
   (Test #1 to Test #Tr).

   - LP, OOS, PD, and PDV
   ********************************************************

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.2.1.2 Testing Queue/Scheduler with Stateful Traffic

   Objective:
   Verify that the configured queue and scheduling technique can handle
   stateless traffic bursts up to the queue depth.

   Test Background and Summary:
   To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
   devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is recommended
   for the queue tests.  Stateful traffic tests will also utilize the
   Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up configuration in
   section 2.

   The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calibrated to the QL of the
   device queue.  Referencing RFC 6349, the BDP is equal to:

   BB * RTT / 8 (in bytes)

   The NDE must be configured to an RTT value which is large enough to
   allow the BDP to be greater than QL.  An example test scenario is
   defined below:

   - Ingress link = GigE
   - Egress link = 100 Mbps (BB)
   - QL = 32KB

   RTT(min) = QL * 8 / BB and would equal 2.56 millisecond (and the 
   BDP = 32KB)

   In this example, one (1) TCP connection with window size / SSB of
   32KB would be required to test the QL of 32KB.  This Bulk Transfer
   Test can be accomplished using iperf as described in Appendix A.

   Two types of TCP tests must be performed: Bulk Transfer test and Micro
   Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B.  The Bulk Transfer
   Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion Avoidance)
   state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application layer bursting
   which may occur any time during the TCP connection.
   
   Other tests types should include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
   Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also 
   documented in Appendix B).

   Test Metrics:
   The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
   section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET), 
   TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 22]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   Procedure:

   1. Configure the DUT queue length (QL) and scheduling technique
      (FIFO, SP, etc) parameters

   2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an
      application traffic mixture

     - The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
       of the total bandwidth to be tested

     - The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
       MUST be also be configurable

   * The tester MUST be capable of generating a precise TCP test
     patterns for each application specified, to ensure repeatable results.

   3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
      egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics (TTPET,
      TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream and at the
      ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default 60 seconds
      duration).

   Reporting Format:
   The Queue/Scheduler Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all
   results for each traffic scheduler and QL/BB test run and a recommended
   format is as follows:

   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary:  Tr, Td

   DUT Configuration Summary:  Scheduling technique, BB and QL

   Application Mixture and Intensities:  this is the percent configured of
   each application type

   The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows,
   (Test #1 to Test #Tr).

   - Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
   - Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
   - Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
   ********************************************************

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 23]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.2.2 Queue / Scheduler Capacity Tests
   
   Objective:
   The intent of these capacity tests is to benchmark queue/scheduler
   performance in a scaled environment with multiple queues/schedulers
   active on multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark
   the maximum number of queues and schedulers as specified by the 
   device manufacturer.  Each priority in the system will map to a 
   separate queue. 

   Test Metrics:
   The metrics defined in section 4.1 (BSA, LP, OOS, PD, and PDV) SHALL
   be measured at the egress port and recorded.

   The following sections provide the specific test scenarios, procedures,
   and reporting formats for each queue / scheduler capacity test.

6.2.2.1 Multiple Queues / Single Port Active
   
   For the first scheduler / queue capacity test, multiple queues per
   port will be tested on a single physical port. In this case,
   all the queues (typically 8) are active on a single physical port.
   Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the 
   same egress physical port which will cause oversubscription on the
   egress physical port.

   There are many types of priority schemes and combinations of
   priorities that are managed by the scheduler. The following 
   sections specify the priority schemes that should be tested.
   
6.2.2.1.1 Strict Priority on Egress Port

   Test Summary:
   For this test, Strict Priority (SP) scheduling on the egress 
   physical port should be tested and the benchmarking methodology
   specified in section 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics,
   and reporting format) should be applied here.  For a given 
   priority, each ingress physical port should get a fair share of
   the egress physical port bandwidth.

   TBD: RAMKI, do we need a concrete example?

   Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report
   results format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
     ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate 
     / mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port

   Report results:
   - For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput
     rate and metrics at the egress port
         
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 24]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.2.2.1.2 Strict Priority + Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ) on Egress Port
   
   Test Summary:
   For this test, Strict Priority (SP) and Weighted Fair Queue (WFQ)
   should be enabled simultaneously in the scheduler but on a single
   egress port. The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 
   6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format)
   should be applied here.  Additionally, the egress port bandwidth 
   sharing among weighted queues should be proportional to the assigned 
   weights. For a given priority, each ingress physical port should get
   a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth.

   TBD: RAMKI, do we need a concrete example?

   Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
   format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
     ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
     mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port

   Report results:
   - For each ingress port traffic stream, the achieved throughput rate
     and metrics at each queue of the egress port queue (both the SP
     and WFQ queue).

   Example:
   - Egress Port SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n

6.2.2.2 Single Queue per Port / All Ports Active

   Test Summary:   
   Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to the
   same egress physical port, which will cause oversubscription on the
   egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is directed 
   to each egress physical port.

   The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1
   and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format)  should be
   applied here. Each ingress physical port should get a fair share of 
   the egress physical port bandwidth. Additionally, each egress 
   physical port should receive the same amount of traffic.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 25]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
   format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of ingress ports active during the test
   - The number of egress ports active during the test 
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
     ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
     mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port

   Report results:
   - For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at
     the egress port queue for each ingress port stream.

   Example:
   - Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n

6.2.2.3 Multiple Queues per Port, All Ports Active
   
   Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed to all
   queues of each egress physical port, which will cause 
   oversubscription on the egress physical ports. Also, the same 
   amount of traffic is directed to each egress physical port.

   The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.2.1.1
   and 6.2.1.2 (procedure, metrics, and reporting format) should be
   applied here. For a given priority, each ingress physical port 
   should get a fair share of the egress physical port bandwidth. 
   Additionally, each egress physical port should receive the same 
   amount of traffic.

   Since this is a capacity test, the configuration and report results
   format from 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
     ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate /
     mixture for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port

   Report results:
   - For each egress port, the achieved throughput rate and metrics at
     each egress port queue for each ingress port stream.

   Example:
   - Egress Port 1, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port 2, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   .
   .
   - Egress Port n, SP Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port n, WFQ Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 26]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.3. Shaper tests

   A traffic shaper is memory based like a queue, but with the added
   intelligence of an active traffic scheduler. The same concepts from
   section 6.2 (Queue testing) can be applied to testing network device
   shaper.

   Again, the tests are divided into two sections; individual shaper
   benchmark tests and then full capacity shaper benchmark tests.

6.3.1 Shaper Individual Tests Overview

   A traffic shaper generally has three (3) components that can be
   configured:
   
   - Ingress Queue bytes
   - Shaper Rate, bps
   - Burst Committed (Bc) and Burst Excess (Be), bytes
   
   The Ingress Queue holds burst traffic and the shaper then meters 
   traffic out of the egress port according to the Shaper Rate and 
   Bc/Be parameters.  Shapers generally transmit into policers, so 
   the idea is for the emitted traffic to conform to the policer's
   limits.

6.3.1.1 Testing Shaper with Stateless Traffic

   Objective:
   Test a shaper by transmitting stateless traffic bursts into the
   shaper ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped
   according to the shaper traffic profile.

   Test Summary:
   The stateless traffic must be burst into the DUT ingress port and
   not exceed the Ingress Queue.  The burst can be a single burst or
   multiple bursts.  If multiple bursts are transmitted, then the 
   Ti (Time interval) must be large enough so that the Shaper Rate is
   not exceeded.  An example will clarify single and multiple burst
   test cases.
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
  
   In the example, the shaper's ingress and egress ports are both full
   duplex Gigabit Ethernet.  The Ingress Queue is configured to be 
   512,000 bytes, the Shaper Rate (SR) = 50 Mbps, and both Bc/Be configured
   to be 32,000 bytes.  For a single burst test, the transmitting test
   device would burst 512,000 bytes maximum into the ingress port and 
   then stop transmitting.  
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 27]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   If a multiple burst test is to be conducted, then the burst bytes
   divided by the time interval between the 512,000 byte bursts must
   not exceed the Shaper Rate.  The time interval (Ti) must adhere to 
   a similar formula as described in section 6.2.1.1 for queues, namely:
   
   Ti = Ingress Queue x 8 / Shaper Rate

   So for the example from the previous paragraph, Ti between bursts must
   be greater than 82 millisecond (512,000 bytes x 8 / 50,000,000 bps).
   This yields an average rate of 50 Mbps so that an Input Queue
   would not overflow.

   Test Metrics:
   - The metrics defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) SHALL
     be measured at the egress port and recorded.

   Procedure:
   1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
      egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters

   2. Configure the tester to generate a stateless traffic burst equal
      to QL and an interval equal to Ti (QL in bits/BB)

   3. Generate bursts of QL traffic into the DUT and measure the metrics
      defined in section 4.1 (LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI) at the egress
      port and across the entire Td (default 30 seconds duration)

   Report Format:
   The Shaper Stateless Traffic individual report MUST contain all results
   for each QL/SR test run and a recommended format is as follows:
   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary:  Tr, Td

   DUT Configuration Summary:  Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR

   The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows,
   (Test #1 to Test #Tr).

   - LP, OOS, PDV, SR, SBB, SBI
   ********************************************************

6.3.1.2 Testing Shaper with Stateful Traffic

   Objective:
   Test a shaper by transmitting stateful traffic bursts into the shaper
   ingress port and verifying that the egress traffic is shaped according
   to the shaper traffic profile.

   Test Summary:
   To provide a more realistic benchmark and to test queues in layer 4
   devices such as firewalls, stateful traffic testing is also
   recommended for the shaper tests.  Stateful traffic tests will also
   utilize the Network Delay Emulator (NDE) from the network set-up
   configuration in section 2.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 28]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   The BDP of the TCP test traffic must be calculated as described in
   section 6.2.2. To properly stress network buffers and the traffic
   shaping function, the cumulative TCP window should exceed the BDP
   which will stress the shaper.  BDP factors of 1.1 to 1.5 are
   recommended, but the values are the discretion of the tester and
   should be documented.

   The cumulative TCP Window Sizes* (RWND at the receiving end & CWND 
   at the transmitting end) equates to:

   TCP window size* for each connection x number of connections

   * as described in section 3 of RFC6349, the SSB MUST be large 
   enough to fill the BDP

   Example, if the BDP is equal to 256 Kbytes and a connection size of
   64Kbytes is used for each connection, then it would require four (4)
   connections to fill the BDP and 5-6 connections (over subscribe the
   BDP) to stress test the traffic shaping function.

   Two types of TCP tests must be performed: Bulk Transfer test and Micro
   Burst Test Pattern as documented in Appendix B.  The Bulk Transfer
   Test only bursts during the TCP Slow Start (or Congestion Avoidance)
   state, while the Micro Burst test emulates application layer bursting
   which may any time during the TCP connection.
   
   Other tests types should include: Simple Web Site, Complex Web Site,
   Business Applications, Email, SMB/CIFS File Copy (which are also 
   documented in Appendix B).

   Test Metrics:
   The test results will be recorded per the stateful metrics defined in
   section 4.2, primarily the TCP Test Pattern Execution Time (TTPET), 
   TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay.

   Procedure:
   1. Configure the DUT shaper ingress queue length (QL) and shaper
      egress rate parameters (SR, Bc, Be) parameters

   2. Configure the tester* to generate a profile of emulated of an
      application traffic mixture

      - The application mixture MUST be defined in terms of percentage
        of the total bandwidth to be tested

      - The rate of transmission for each application within the mixture
        MUST be also be configurable

   *The tester MUST be capable of generating precise TCP test patterns for
    each application specified, to ensure repeatable results.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 29]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   3. Generate application traffic between the ingress (client side) and
      egress (server side) ports of the DUT and measure the metrics (TTPET,
      TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay) per application stream and at the
      ingress and egress port (across the entire Td, default 30 seconds
      duration).

   Reporting Format:
   The Shaper Stateful Traffic individual report MUST contain all results
   for each traffic scheduler and QL/SR test run and a recommended format
   is as follows:

   ********************************************************
   Test Configuration Summary: Tr, Td

   DUT Configuration Summary: Ingress Burst Rate, QL, SR

   Application Mixture and Intensities: this is the percent configured of
   each application type

   The results table should contain entries for each test run as follows,
   (Test #1 to Test #Tr).

   - Per Application Throughout (bps) and TTPET
   - Per Application Bytes In and Bytes Out
   - Per Application TCP Efficiency, and Buffer Delay
   ********************************************************

6.3.2 Shaper Capacity Tests

   Objective:
   The intent of these scalability tests is to verify shaper performance
   in a scaled environment with shapers active on multiple queues on
   multiple egress physical ports. This test will benchmark the maximum
   number of shapers as specified by the device manufacturer.

   The following sections provide the specific test scenarios, procedures,
   and reporting formats for each shaper capacity test.

6.3.2.1 Single Queue Shaped, All Physical Ports Active

   Test Summary:
   The first shaper capacity test involves per port shaping, all physical
   ports active. Traffic from multiple ingress physical ports are directed
   to the same egress physical port and this will cause oversubscription 
   on the egress physical port. Also, the same amount of traffic is 
   directed to each egress physical port.  

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 30]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

   The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
   metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is a
   capacity test, the configuration and report results format from 6.3.1
   MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical ingress
     port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / mixture
     for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
   - The shaped egress ports shaper parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be)

   Report results:
   - For each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate and shaper
     metrics for each ingress port traffic stream

   Example:
   - Egress Port 1: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port n: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   
6.3.2.2 All Queues Shaped, Single Port Active
   
   Test Summary:
   The second shaper capacity test is conducted with all queues actively
   shaping on a single physical port. The benchmarking methodology
   described in per port shaping test (previous section) serves as the 
   foundation for this. Additionally, each of the SP queues on the 
   egress physical port is configured with a shaper. For the highest 
   priority queue, the maximum amount of bandwidth available is limited 
   by the bandwidth of the shaper. For the lower priority queues, the 
   maximum amount of bandwidth available is limited by the bandwidth of
   the shaper and traffic in higher priority queues.

   The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure,
   metrics, and reporting format) should be applied here. Since this is
   a capacity test, the configuration and report results format from
   6.3.1 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical
     ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate/mixture
     for stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
   - For the active egress port, each shaper queue parameters (QL, SR, Bc, Be)

   Report results:
   - For each queue of the active egress port, the achieved throughput 
     rate and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream

   Example:
   - Egress Port High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 31]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

6.3.2.3 All Queues Shaped, All Ports Active

   Test Summary:
   And for the third shaper capacity test (which is a combination of the
   tests in the previous two sections),all queues will be actively 
   shaping and all physical ports active.

   The benchmarking methodology specified in Section 6.3.1 (procedure, metrics,
   and reporting format) should be applied here.  Since this is a capacity test,
   the configuration and report results format from 6.3.1 MUST also include:

   Configuration:
   - The number of physical ingress ports active during the test
   - The classication marking (DSCP, VLAN, etc.) for each physical ingress port
   - The traffic rate for stateful traffic and the traffic rate / mixture for
     stateful traffic for each physical ingress port
   - For each of the active egress ports, shaper port and per queue parameters
     (QL, SR, Bc, Be)

   Report results:
   - For each queue of each active egress port, the achieved throughput rate
     and shaper metrics for each ingress port traffic stream

   Example:
   - Egress Port 1 High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port 1 Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   .
   .
   - Egress Port n High Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n
   - Egress Port n Lower Priority Queue: throughput and metrics for ingress streams 1-n

6.4 Concurrent Capacity Load Tests

   As mentioned in the scope of this document, it is impossible to
   specify the various permutations of concurrent traffic management
   functions that should be tested in a device for capacity testing.
   However, some profiles are listed below which may be useful
   to test under capacity as well:
   
   - Policers on ingress and queuing on egress
   - Policers on ingress and shapers on egress (not intended for a 
     flow to be policed then shaped, these would be two different
     flows tested at the same time)
   - etc.

   The test procedures and reporting formatting from the previous sections may
   be modified to accommodate the capacity test profile.

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 32]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
Appendix A: Open Source Tools for Traffic Management Testing

   This framework specifies that stateless and stateful behaviors should
   both be tested.  Three (3) open source tools that can be used are
   iperf, netperf (with netperf-wrapper),and Flowgrind to accomplish
   many of the tests proposed in this framework.

   Iperf can generate UDP or TCP based traffic; a client and server must
   both run the iperf software in the same traffic mode.  The server is
   set up to listen and then the test traffic is controlled from the
   client.  Both uni-directional and bi-directional concurrent testing
   are supported.

   The UDP mode can be used for the stateless traffic testing.  The
   target bandwidth, packet size, UDP port, and test duration can be
   controlled.  A report of bytes transmitted, packets lost, and delay
   variation are provided by the iperf receiver.

   The TCP mode can be used for stateful traffic testing to test bulk
   transfer traffic.  The TCP Window size (which is actually the SSB),
   the number of connections, the packet size, TCP port and the test
   duration can be controlled.  A report of bytes transmitted and
   throughput achieved are provided by the iperf sender.

   Netperf is a software application that provides network bandwidth
   testing between two hosts on a network. It supports Unix domain
   sockets, TCP, SCTP, DLPI and UDP via BSD Sockets.[1] Netperf provides
   a number of predefined tests e.g. to measure bulk (unidirectional)
   data transfer or request response performance (add reference to Wiki,
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netperf). Netperf-wrapper is a Python
   script that runs multiple simultaneous netperf instances and
   aggregate the results.

   Flowgrind is a distributed network performance measurement tool.
   Using the flowgrind controller, tests can be setup between hosts
   running flowgrind.  For the purposes of this traffic management
   testing framework, the key benefit of Flowgrind is that it can
   emulate non-bulk transfer applications such as HTTP, Email, etc.
   Traffic generation options include the request size, response size,
   inter-request gap, and response time gap.  Additionally, various
   distribution types are supported including constant, normal,
   exponential, pareto, etc.  

   Both netperf-wrapper and flowgrind's traffic generation parameters
   facilitate the emulation of the TCP test patterns which are 
   discussed in Appendix B.
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 33]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

Appendix B: Stateful TCP Test Patterns

   This framework recommends at a minimum the following TCP test patterns
   since they are representative of real world application traffic (section
   5.2.1 describes some methods to derive other application-based TCP test
   patterns).
   
   - Bulk Transfer: generate concurrent TCP connections whose aggregate
   number of in-flight data bytes would fill the BDP.  Guidelines
   from RFC 6349 are used to create this TCP traffic pattern.

   - Micro Burst: generate precise burst patterns within a single or multiple
   TCP connections(s).  The idea is for TCP to establish equilibrium and then
   burst application bytes at defined sizes.  The test tool must allow the
   burst size and burst time interval to be configurable.

   - Web Site Patterns: The HTTP traffic model from "3GPP2 C.R1002-0 v1.0"
   is referenced (Table 4.1.3.2-1) to develop these TCP test patterns.  In 
   summary, the HTTP traffic model consists of the following parameters:
       - Main object size (Sm)
       - Embedded object size (Se)
       - Number of embedded objects per page (Nd)
       - Client processing time (Tcp)
       - Server processing time (Tsp)
           
    Web site test patterns are illustrated with the following examples:
        
      - Simple Web Site: mimic the request / response and object download
        behavior of a basic web site (small company).
      - Complex Web Site: mimic the request / response and object download
        behavior of a complex web site (ecommerce site).
   
   Referencing the HTTP traffic model parameters , the following table 
   was derived (by analysis and experimentation) for Simple and Complex 
   Web site TCP test patterns:
   
                            Simple         Complex        
   Parameter                Web Site       Web Site       
   -----------------------------------------------------
   Main object              Ave. = 10KB    Ave. = 300KB 
    size (Sm)               Min. = 100B    Min. = 50KB  
                            Max. = 500KB   Max. = 2MB   
   
   Embedded object          Ave. = 7KB     Ave. = 10KB  
    size (Se)               Min. = 50B     Min. = 100B  
                            Max. = 350KB   Max. = 1MB   
   
   Number of embedded       Ave. = 5       Ave. = 25  
    objects per page (Nd)   Min. = 2       Min. = 10  
                            Max. = 10      Max. = 50   
   
   Client processing        Ave. = 3s      Ave. = 10s
    time (Tcp)*             Min. = 1s      Min. = 3s  
                            Max. = 10s     Max. = 30s   
   
   Server processing        Ave. = 5s      Ave. = 8s  
    time (Tsp)*             Min. = 1s      Min. = 2s  
                            Max. = 15s     Max. = 30s   
                                                        
   * The client and server processing time is distributed across the 
   transmission / receipt of all of the main and embedded objects
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 34]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   To be clear, the parameters in this table are reasonable guidelines 
   for the TCP test pattern traffic generation.  The test tool can use 
   fixed parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for
   more complex tests.  However, the test pattern must be repeatable to
   ensure that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.
   
   - Inter-active Patterns:  While Web site patterns are inter-active
   to a degree, they mainly emulate the downloading of various
   complexity web sites.  Inter-active patterns are more chatty in nature
   since there is alot of user interaction with the servers.  Examples 
   include business applications such as Peoplesoft, Oracle and consumer
   applications such as Facebook, IM, etc.  For the inter-active patterns, 
   the packet capture technique was used to characterize some business
   applications and also the email application.
   
   In summary, an inter-active application can be described by the following
   parameters:
       - Client message size (Scm)
       - Number of Client messages (Nc)
       - Server response size (Srs)
       - Number of server messages (Ns)
       - Client processing time (Tcp)
       - Server processing Time (Tsp)
       - File size upload (Su)*
       - File size download (Sd)*
           
    * The file size parameters account for attachments uploaded or downloaded
        and may not be present in all inter-active applications

   Again using packet capture as a means to characterize, the following
   table reflects the guidelines for Simple Business Application, Complex
   Business Application, eCommerce, and Email Send / Receive:
   
                     Simple       Complex             
   Parameter         Biz. App.    Biz. App     eCommerce*  Email  
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Client message    Ave. = 450B  Ave. = 2KB   Ave. = 1KB  Ave. = 200B
    size (Scm)       Min. = 100B  Min. = 500B  Min. = 100B Min. = 100B  
                     Max. = 1.5KB Max. = 100KB Max. = 50KB Max. = 1KB
   
   Number of client  Ave. = 10    Ave. = 100   Ave. = 20    Ave. = 10
    messages (Nc)    Min. = 5     Min. = 50    Min. = 10    Min. = 5
                     Max. = 25    Max. = 250   Max. = 100   Max. = 25

   Client processing Ave. = 10s   Ave. = 30s   Ave. = 15s   Ave. = 5s
    time (Tcp)**     Min. = 3s    Min. = 3s    Min. = 5s    Min. = 3s
                     Max. = 30s   Max. = 60s   Max. = 120s  Max. = 45s
   
   Server response   Ave. = 2KB   Ave. = 5KB   Ave. = 8KB   Ave. = 200B
    size (Srs)       Min. = 500B  Min. = 1KB   Min. = 100B  Min. = 150B
                     Max. = 100KB Max. = 1MB   Max. = 50KB  Max. = 750B
   
   Number of server  Ave. = 50    Ave. = 200   Ave. = 100   Ave. = 15
    messages (Ns)    Min. = 10    Min. = 25    Min. = 15    Min. = 5
                     Max. = 200   Max. = 1000  Max. = 500   Max. = 40
   
   Server processing Ave. = 0.5s  Ave. = 1s    Ave. = 2s    Ave. = 4s
    time (Tsp)**     Min. = 0.1s  Min. = 0.5s  Min. = 1s    Min. = 0.5s
                     Max. = 5s    Max. = 20s   Max. = 10s   Max. = 15s

    File size        Ave. = 50KB  Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A   Ave. = 100KB
    upload (Su)      Min. = 2KB   Min. = 10KB  Min. = N/A   Min. = 20KB
                     Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB   Max. = N/A   Max. = 10MB
                                         
    File size        Ave. = 50KB  Ave. = 100KB Ave. = N/A   Ave. = 100KB
    download (Sd)    Min. = 2KB   Min. = 10KB  Min. = N/A   Min. = 20KB
                     Max. = 200KB Max. = 2MB   Max. = N/A   Max. = 10MB
   
   * eCommerce used a combination of packet capture techniques and 
   reference traffic flows from "SPECweb2009" (need proper reference)
   ** The client and server processing time is distributed across the 
   transmission / receipt of all of messages.  Client processing time
   consists mainly of the delay between user interactions (not machine
   processing).
   
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 35]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014
   
   And again, the parameters in this table are the guidelines for the
   TCP test pattern traffic generation.  The test tool can use fixed 
   parameters for simpler tests and mathematical distributions for more
   complex tests.  However, the test pattern must be repeatable to ensure
   that the benchmark results can be reliably compared.

   - SMB/CIFS File Copy: mimic a network file copy, both read and write.  
   As opposed to FTP which is a bulk transfer and is only flow controlled
   via TCP, SMB/CIFS divides a file into application blocks and utilizes
   application level handshaking in addition to TCP flow control.

   In summary, an SMB/CIFS file copy can be described by the following
   parameters:
       - Client message size (Scm)
       - Number of client messages (Nc)
       - Server response size (Srs)
       - Number of Server messages (Ns)
       - Client processing time (Tcp)
       - Server processing time (Tsp)
       - Block size (Sb)

   The client and server messages are SMB control messages.  The Block size
   is the data portion of th file transfer.
   
   Again using packet capture as a means to characterize the following
   table reflects the guidelines for SMB/CIFS file copy:
   
                     SMB       
   Parameter         File Copy
   ------------------------------
   Client message    Ave. = 450B
    size (Scm)       Min. = 100B
                     Max. = 1.5KB
   Number of client  Ave. = 10
    messages (Nc)    Min. = 5
                     Max. = 25
   Client processing Ave. = 1ms
    time (Tcp)       Min. = 0.5ms
                     Max. = 2
   Server response   Ave. = 2KB
    size (Srs)       Min. = 500B
                     Max. = 100KB
   Number of server  Ave. = 10
    messages (Ns)    Min. = 10
                     Max. = 200
   Server processing Ave. = 1ms
    time (Tsp)       Min. = 0.5ms
                     Max. = 2ms
    Block            Ave. = N/A
     Size (Sb)*      Min. = 16KB
                     Max. = 128KB

    *Depending upon the tested file size, the block size will be
    transferred n number of times to complete the example.  An example 
    would be a 10 MB file test and 64KB block size.  In this case 160 
    blocks would be transferred after the control channel is opened 
    between the client and server.
        
Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 36]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

7. Security Considerations

8. IANA Considerations

9. Conclusions

10. References

10.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2234] Crocker, D. and Overell, P.(Editors), "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, Internet Mail
             Consortium and Demon Internet Ltd., November 1997.

   [RFC2680] G. Almes et al., "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,"
             RFC 2680 September 1999

   [RFC2697] J. Heinanen et al., "A Single Rate Three Color Marker,"
             RFC 2697, September 1999

   [RFC2698] J. Heinanen et al., "A Two Rate Three Color Marker, "
             RFC 2698, September 1999

   [RFC4689] S. Poretsky et al., "Terminology for Benchmarking
             Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms," RFC 4689,
             October 2006

   [RFC4737] A. Morton et al., "Packet Reordering Metrics," RFC 4737,
             November 2006

   [RFC6349] Barry Constantine et al., "Framework for TCP Throughput
             Testing," RFC 6349, August 2011

   [AQM-RECO] Fred Baker et al., "IETF Recommendations Regarding
              Active Queue Management," August 2014,
              https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/

   [MEF-10.2] "MEF 10.2: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2," October 2009,
              http://metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/technical-
              specifications/MEF10.2.pdf

   [MEF-12.1] "MEF 12.1: Carrier Ethernet Network Architecture Framework --
              Part 2: Ethernet Services Layer - Base Elements," April 2010,
              https://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specifications
              /PDF/MEF12.1.pdf

   [MEF-26] "MEF 26: External Network Network Interface (ENNI) - Phase 1,"
            January 2010,  http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents
            /technical-specifications/MEF26.pdf

10.2. Informative References

11. Acknowledgments

Constantine                       November 12, 2014            [Page 37]

Internet-Draft     Traffic Management Benchmarking        November, 2014

Authors' Addresses

   Barry Constantine

   JDSU, Test and Measurement Division

   Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA

   Phone: +1 240 404 2227

   Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com

   Timothy Copley

   Level 3 Communications

   14605 S 50th Street

   Phoenix, AZ 85044

   Email: Timothy.copley@level3.com

   Ram Krishnan

   Brocade Communications

   San Jose, 95134, USA

   Phone: +001-408-406-7890

   Email: ramk@brocade.com

Constantine                       November 12, 2014              [Page 38]