Benchmarking Methodology for EVPN VPWS
draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpnvpwstest-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-12-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                            S. Jacob, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           K. Tiruveedhula
Intended status: Informational                          Juniper Networks
Expires: June 14, 2020                                 December 12, 2019

                 Benchmarking Methodology for EVPN VPWS
                   draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpnvpwstest-03

Abstract

   This document defines methodologies for benchmarking EVPN-VPWS
   performance.EVPN-VPWS is defined in RFC 8214, and is being deployed
   in Service Provider networks.Specifically this document defines the
   methodologies for benchmarking EVPN-VPWS Scale convergence, Fail
   over,Core isolation,high availability and longevity.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include 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.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.2.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Test Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Local Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Fail over Test in Remote PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Core Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Link Flap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Activate/deactivate AC's  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Deactivate/Activate M number of attachment circuits.  . .   9
   5.  Scale Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  To measure the packet loss during the core link failure.    9
   6.  High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  To Record the whether there is traffic loss due to
           routing engine failover for redundancy test.  . . . . . .  10
   7.  SOAK Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  To Measure the stability of the DUT with scale and
           traffic.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   EVPN-VPWS is defined in RFC 8214,discusses how VPWS can be combined
   with EVPNs to provide a new/combined solution.  This draft defines
   methodologies that can be used to benchmark RFC 8214 solutions.
   Further, this draft provides methodologies for benchmarking the
   performance of EVPN VPWS Scale,Scale Convergence, Core isolation,
   longevity, high availability.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

1.2.  Terminologies

   All-Active Redundancy Mode: When all PEs attached to an Ethernet
   segment are allowed to forward known unicast traffic to/from that
   Ethernet segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet segment is
   defined to be operating in All-Active redundancy mode.

   AA All Active mode

   AC Attachment Circuits

   CE Customer Router/Devices/Switch.

   DF Designated Forwarder

   DUT Device under test.

   Ethernet Segment (ES): When a customer site (device or network) is
   connected to one or more PEs via a set of Ethernet links, then that
   set of links is referred to as an 'Ethernet segment'.

   EVI: An EVPN instance spanning the Provider Edge (PE) devices
   participating in that EVPN.

   Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI): A unique non-zero identifier that
   identifies an Ethernet segment is called an 'Ethernet Segment
   Identifier'.

   Ethernet Tag: An Ethernet tag identifies a particular broadcast
   domain, e.g., a VLAN.  An EVPN instance consists of one or more
   broadcast domains.

   Interface Physical interface of a router/switch.

   IRB Integrated routing and bridging interface

   MAC Media Access Control addresses on a PE.

   MHPE2 Multi homed Provider Edge router 2.

   MHPE1 Multi homed Provider Edge router 1.

   SHPE3 Single homed Provider Edge Router 3.

   PE: Provider Edge device.

   P Provider Router.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   RR Route Reflector.

   RT Traffic Generator.

   Sub Interface Each physical Interfaces is subdivided into Logical
   units.

   SA Single Active

   Single-Active Redundancy Mode: When only a single PE, among all the
   PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is allowed to forward traffic
   to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN, then the Ethernet
   segment is defined to be operating in Single-Active redundancy mode.

2.  Test Topology

   EVPN-VPWS Services running on SHPE3, MHPE1 and MHPE2 in Single Active
   Mode:

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

                             Topology Diagram

         | Traffic Generator acts as a sender/receiver of layer 2 traffic with multiple vlan.
+----------+
|          |
|  SHPE3   |
|  SHPE3   |
+----------+
    |
    |Core link
+----------+
|          |
|  RR      |
|          | Route Reflector/Provider router
+----------+-------------|
   |                     |
   |     Core links      |
+----------+       +-----------+
|          |       |    MHPE2  |
|   DUT    |       |           |
|  MHPE1   |       |           |
+----------+       +-----------+
     |    PE-CE link    |
+----------+------------
|          |
|  CE      |
|  layer2  |
|bridge    |
+----------+------------ Traffic Generator acts as a sender/receiver of layer 2 traffic with multiple vlan.

Topology 1

                             Topology Diagram

                                 Figure 1

   There are five routers in the topology.  SHPE3, RR/P, MHPE1 and MHPE2
   emulating a service provider network.  CE is a customer device
   connected to MHPE1 and MHPE2, it is configured with bridge domains in
   different vlans.  The traffic generator is connected to CE and
   SHPE3.The MHPE1 acts as DUT.The traffic generator will act as sender
   and receiver.The measurement will be taken in DUT.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   All routers except CE is configured with OSPF/IS-IS,LDP,MPLS,BGP with
   EVPN address family.

   All routers except CE must have Interior Border Gateway protocol
   configured,RR acting as route reflector.

   MHPE1,MHPE2,SHPE3 must be configured with "N" EVPN-VPWS instances
   depends up on the cases.

   MHPE1 and MHEPE2 must be configured with ESI per vlan or ESI on
   Interface.

   MHPE1 and MHEPE2 are running Single Active mode of EVPN-VPWS.

   CE is acting as bridge configured with vlans that is configured on
   MHPE1,MHPE2,SHPE3.

   Depends up on the test traffic will be flowing uni directional or bi
   directional depends on the topology mentioned above.

   The above configuration will serve as base configuration for all the
   test cases.

3.  Test Cases

   The following tests are conducted to measure the packet loss during
   the local link and core failure in DUT with Scaled AC's.

3.1.  Local Failure

   Objective:

   To Record the time taken to switch from primary to backup during
   local link failure.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is active and DUT is backup PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets to CE from traffic generator to MHPE2 AC's working in SA.
   Then shut the MHPE2-CE link, so that traffic from CE switches to DUT.

   Measurement :

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   Measure the time taken to switch the traffic from active to backup,
   the traffic will flow from MHPE1 to SHPE3.  Measure the time taken to
   switch the traffic.

   The test is repeated for "N" times and the values are collected.  The
   switching time is calculated by averaging the values obtained from
   "N" samples.

   AC's switch over from primary to backup PE in sec = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

3.2.  Fail over Test in Remote PE

   Objective:

   To Record the time taken by remote PE to switch traffic from primary
   to backup during CE link failure.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is active and DUT is backup PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets from traffic generator to SHPE3 Ac's.Then shut the MHPE2-CE
   link, this failure will be notified to remote PE and traffic switch
   to backup path.

   Measurement :

   Measure the time taken to switch the traffic from active to backup,
   the traffic will flow from SHPE3 to MHPE1.  Measure the time taken to
   switch the traffic.

   The test is repeated for "N" times and the values are collected.  The
   switching time is calculated by averaging the values obtained from
   "N" samples.

   AC's switch over from primary to backup PE in sec = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

3.3.  Core Failure

   Objective:

   To Record the time taken by remote PE to switch traffic from primary
   to backup during core link failure.

   Topology : Topology 1

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is active and DUT is backup PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets from traffic generator to SHPE3 Ac's.Then shut the core link
   of MHPE2,this failure will be notified to remote PE and traffic
   switch to backup path.

   Measurement :

   Measure the time taken to switch the traffic from active to backup,
   the traffic will flow from SHPE3 to MHPE1.  Measure the time taken to
   switch the traffic.

   The test is repeated for "N" times and the values are collected.  The
   switching time is calculated by averaging the values obtained from
   "N" samples.

   AC's in remote PE switches from primary to backup PE in sec due to
   core failure = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

3.4.  Link Flap

   Objective:

   To Record the time taken by primary PE to regain control after the
   local PE-CE link flap.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is standby and DUT is primary PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets from traffic generator connected to CE to all Ac's in
   MHPE1(DUT).Then shut the link of MHPE1-CE,this failure will be
   notified to remote PE and traffic switch to backup path.  Then bring
   up the link of MHPE1-CE.Now the traffic switches to DUT.

   Measurement :

   Measure the time taken to switch the traffic from MHPE2 to DUT, the
   traffic will flow from MHPE1 to SHPE3.  Measure the time taken to
   switch the traffic.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   The test is repeated for "N" times and the values are collected.  The
   switching time is calculated by averaging the values obtained from
   "N" samples.

   Time taken to switch back to primary(DUT) once the link is restored =
   (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

4.  Activate/deactivate AC's

4.1.  Deactivate/Activate M number of attachment circuits.

   Objective:

   To measure the performance of the DUT while deactivating/activating
   AC's.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is active and DUT is backup PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets from traffic generator to SHPE3 to all Ac's and send "X"
   unicast packets from CE to MHPE1(DUT),let the DUT is the active and
   the MHPE2 must be standby.DUT will be forwarding the traffic to CE
   and from CE to SHPE3.Then deactivate "M" AC's on SHPE1,DUT and MHPE2
   on the fly. these AC' must be removed from forwarding plane.  Stop
   the traffic for these AC's.  Activate the AC's in all PE's.  then
   start the traffic, measure the time taken by "M" AC's to forward the
   traffic.

   Measurement :

   Measure the packet loss in sec during this deactivating/activating
   AC's.Repeat the test "N" times and the packet loss is calculated by
   averaging the values obtained from "N" samples.

   packet loss in sec = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

5.  Scale Convergence

5.1.  To measure the packet loss during the core link failure.

   Objective:

   To Measure the convergence at a higher number of AC's

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N'" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA mode.DF
   election must be priority based not on the default RFC 7432, it
   should not be MOD based DF election.Send "X" unicast packets from
   traffic generator to SHPE3 to all Ac's and send "X" unicast packets
   from CE to MHPE1(DUT),let the DUT is the active and the MHPE2 must be
   standby.  DUT will be forwarding the traffic to CE from SHPE3 and
   from CE to SHPE3.Then flap the core link of the DUT.

   Measurement :

   Measure the packet loss in seconds once the core link is
   restored.Repeat the test "N" times and the packet loss is calculated
   by averaging the values obtained from "N" samples.

   Packet loss in sec = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

6.  High Availability

6.1.  To Record the whether there is traffic loss due to routing engine
      fail over for redundancy test.

   Objective:

   To record traffic loss during routing engine failover.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Configure "N" AC's in SHPE3 and MHPE1,MHPE2, working in SA
   mode.Ensure MHPE2 is active and DUT is backup PE.Send "X" unicast
   packets from traffic generator to SHPE3 to all Ac's and send "X"
   unicast packets from CE to MHPE1(DUT),let the DUT is the active and
   the MHPE2 must be standby.  DUT will be forwarding the traffic to CE
   and from CE to SHPE3.Then do a routing engine fail-over.

   Measurement :

   The expectation of the test is 0 traffic loss with no change in the
   DF role.  DUT should not withdraw any routes.But in cases where the
   DUT is not property synchronized between master and standby,due to
   that packet loss are observed.  In that scenario the packet loss is

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

   measured.The test is repeated for "N" times and the values are
   collected.The packet loss is calculated by averaging the values
   obtained by "N" samples.

   Packet loss in sec = (T1+T2+..Tn/N)

7.  SOAK Test

   This test is carried out to measure the stability of the DUT in a
   scaled environment with traffic over a period of time "T'".  In each
   interval "t1" the DUT CPU usage, memory usage are measured.  The DUT
   is checked for any crashes during this time period.

7.1.  To Measure the stability of the DUT with scale and traffic.

   Objective:

   To measure the stability of the DUT in a scaled environment with
   traffic.

   Topology : Topology 1

   Procedure:

   Scale N AC's in DUT,SHPE3 and MHPE2.Send F frames to DUT from CE
   using traffic generator with different X SA and DA for N EVI's.  Send
   F frames from traffic generator to SHPE3 with X different SA and DA.
   There is a bi directional traffic flow with F pps in each direction.
   The DUT must run with traffic for 24 hours, every hour check for
   memory leak, crash.

   Measurement :

   Take the hourly reading of CPU, process memory.There should not be
   any leak, crashes, CPU spikes.  Th CPU spike is determined as the CPU
   usage which shoots at 40 to 50 percent of the average usage.  The
   average value vary from device to device.  Memory leak is determined
   by increase usage of the memory for EVPN-VPWS process.  The
   expectation is under steady state the memory usage for EVPN-VPWS
   process should not increase.

8.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Al and Sarah for the support.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   The benchmarking tests described in this document are limited to the
   performance characterization of controllers in a lab environment with
   isolated networks.  The benchmarking network topology will be an
   independent test setup and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may
   forward the test traffic into a production network or misroute
   traffic to the test management network.  Further, benchmarking is
   performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements
   observable external to the controller.  Special capabilities SHOULD
   NOT exist in the controller specifically for benchmarking purposes.
   Any implications for network security arising from the controller
   SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production networks.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.

   [RFC2899]  Ginoza, S., "Request for Comments Summary RFC Numbers
              2800-2899", RFC 2899, DOI 10.17487/RFC2899, May 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2899>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC8214]  Boutros, S., Sajassi, A., Salam, S., Drake, J., and J.
              Rabadan, "Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet
              VPN", RFC 8214, DOI 10.17487/RFC8214, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8214>.

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     EVPN-VPWS Benchmarking Methodology      December 2019

Appendix A.  Appendix

Authors' Addresses

   Sudhin Jacob (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   Bangalore
   India

   Phone: +91 8061212543
   Email: sjacob@juniper.net

   Kishore Tiruveedhula
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Dr
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Phone: +1 9785898861
   Email: kishoret@juniper.net

Jacob & Tiruveedhula      Expires June 14, 2020                [Page 13]