An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-05-20
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) 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)
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                         G. Lencse
Internet-Draft                                                      BUTE
Intended status: Informational                                  K. Shima
Expires: November 21, 2020                                        IIJ-II
                                                            May 20, 2020

An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
                    draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00

Abstract

   RFC 2544 has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
   interconnect devices.  We recommend a few upgrades to it for
   producing more reasonable results.  The recommended upgrades can be
   classified into two categories: the application of the novelties of
   RFC 8219 for the legacy RFC 2544 use cases and the following new
   ones.  Checking a reasonably small timeout individually for every
   single frame in the throughput and frame loss rate benchmarking
   procedures.  Performing a statistically relevant number of tests for
   all benchmarking procedures.  Addition of an optional non-zero frame
   loss acceptance criterion for the throughput measurement procedure
   and defining its reporting format.

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 November 21, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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

Lencse & Shima          Expires November 21, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              RFC 2544 Upgrade                    May 2020

   (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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Recommendation to Backport the Novelties of RFC8219 . . . . .   3
   3.  Improved Throughput and Frame Loss Rate Measurement
       Procedures using Individual Frame Timeout . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Requirement of Statistically Relevant Number of Tests . . . .   4
   5.  An Optional Non-zero Frame Loss Acceptance Criterion for the
       Throughput Measurement  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     A.1.  00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   [RFC2544] has defined a benchmarking methodology for network
   interconnect devices.  [RFC5180] addressed IPv6 specificities and
   also added technology updates, but declared IPv6 transition
   technologies out of its scope.  [RFC8219] addressed the IPv6
   transition technologies, and it added further measurement procedures
   (e.g. for packet delay variation (PDV) and inter packet delay
   variation (IPDV)).  It has also recommended to perform multiple tests
   (at least 20), and it proposed median as summarizing function and 1st
   and 99th percentiles as the measure of variation of the results of
   the multiple tests.  This is a significant change compared to
   [RFC2544], which always used only average as summarizing function.
   [RFC8219] also redefined the latency measurement procedure with the
   requirement of marking at least 500 frames with identifying tags for
   latency measurements, instead of using only a single one.  However,
Show full document text