Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544
draft-morton-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Al Morton | ||
| Last updated | 2017-10-30 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame, draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame, RFC 9004 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-morton-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 2544 (if approved) October 30, 2017
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 3, 2018
Updates for the Back-to-back Frame Benchmark in RFC 2544
draft-morton-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
Abstract
Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect
Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. This memo
updates the provisions of the test to measure the Back-to-back frames
Benchmark of RFC 2544, based on further experience.
This memo updates Section 26.4 of RFC 2544.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at 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 May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Pre-Requisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Back-to-back Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined
in[RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and
[RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944].
Over time, the benchmarking community has updated [RFC2544] several
times, including the Device Reset Benchmark [RFC6201], and the
important Applicability Statement [RFC6815] concerning use outside
the Isolated Test Environment (ITE) required for accurate
benchmarking. Other specifications implicitly update [RFC2544], such
as the IPv6 Benchmarking Methodologies in [RFC5180].
Recent testing experience with the Back-to-back Frame test and
Benchmark in Section 26.4 of [RFC2544] indicates that an update is
warranted [OPNFV-2017] [VSPERF-b2b]. This memo describes the
rationale and provides the updated method.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
[RFC2544] provides its own Requirements Language consistent with
[RFC2119], since [RFC1944] predates [RFC2119]. Thus, the
requirements presented in this memo are expressed in [RFC2119] terms,
and intended for those performing/reporting laboratory tests to
improve clarity and repeatability, and for those designing devices
that facilitate these tests.
2. Scope and Goals
The scope of this memo is to define an updated method to
unambiguously perform tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the
results for Back-to-back Frames (presently described Section 26.4 of
[RFC2544]).
The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible,
and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the
results.
[RFC2544] Benchmarks rely on test conditions with constant frame
sizes, with the goal of understanding what network device capability
has been tested. Tests with the smallest size stress the header
processing capacity, and tests with the largest size stress the
overall bit processing capacity. Tests with sizes in-between may
determine the transition between these two capacities. However,
conditions simultaneously sending multiple frame sizes, such as those
described in [RFC6985], MUST NOT be used in Back-to-back Frame
testing.
3. Motivation
Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] describes the rationale for the Back-to-back
Frames Benchmark. To summarize, there are several reasons that
devices on a network produce bursts of frames at the minimum allowed
spacing, and it is therefore worthwhile to understand the Device
Under Test (DUT) limit on the length of such bursts in practice.
Also, [RFC1242] states:
"Tests of this parameter are intended to determine the extent
of data buffering in the device."
After this test was defined, there have been occasional discussions
of the stability and repeatability of the results, both over time and
across labs. Fortunately, the Open Platform for Network Function
Virtualization (OPNFV) VSPERF project's Continuous Integration (CI)
testing routinely repeats Back-to-back Frame tests to verify that
test functionality has been maintained through development of the
test control programs. These tests were used as a basis to evaluate
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
stability and repeatability, even across lab set-ups when the test
platform was migrated to new DUT hardware at the end of 2016.
When the VSPERF CI results were examined [VSPERF-b2b], several
aspects of the results were considered notable:
1. Back-to-back Frame Benchmark was very consistent for some fixed
frame sizes, and somewhat variable for others.
2. The Back-to-back Frame length reported for large frame sizes was
unexpectedly long, and no explanation or measurement limit
condition was indicated.
3. Calculation of the extent of buffer time in the DUT helped
explain the results with all frame sizes (some frame sizes cannot
exceed the frame header processing rate of the DUT, and therefore
no buffering occurs).
4. It was observed that the actual buffer time in the DUT could be
estimated using results from the Throughput tests conducted
according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544].
Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are
conducted as a pre-requiste test, the number of frame sizes required
for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of
the small frame sizes, or results for large frame sizes can be noted
as invalid in the results.
[VSPERF-b2b] provides the details of the calculation to estimate the
actual buffer time available in the DUT, using results from the
Throughput tests for each frame size, and the maximum theoretical
frame rate for the DUT links (which constrain the minimum frame
spacing).
4. Pre-Requisites
The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or
Figure 2 when the tester's sender and reciver are different devices.
Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be
included, unless explicitly modified in the next section.
The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be
specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when
respecting the minimum inter-frame gap.
The test results for the Throughput Benchmark conducted according to
Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] for all [RFC2544]-RECOMMENDED frame sizes
MUST be available to reduce the tested frame size list, or to note
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
invalid results for individual frame sizes (because the burst length
may be infinite for large frame sizes).
Note that:
o the Throughput and the Back-to-back Frame measurement
configuration traffic characteristics (unidirectional or bi-
directional) MUST match.
o the Throughput measurement MUST be under zero-loss conditions,
according to Section 26.1 of [RFC2544].
The Back-to-back Benchmark described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1242] MUST
be measured directly by the tester. Additional measurement
reuirements are described below in Section 5.
5. Back-to-back Frames
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT to process back-to-
back frames as defined in [RFC1242].
The Procedure follows.
5.1. Preparing the list of Frame sizes
From the list of RECOMMENDED Frame sizes (Section 9 of [RFC2544]),
select the subset of Frame sizes whose measured Throughput was less
than the maximum theoretical Frame Rate. Only these Frame sizes make
it possible to produce a burst of frames that cause the DUT buffers
to fill and eventually overflow, producing one or more discarded
frames.
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size
Each trial in the test requires the tester to send a burst of frames
(after idle time) with the minimum inter-frame gap, and to count the
frames forwarded by the DUT.
The duration of the trial MUST be at least 2 seconds, to allow DUT
buffers to deplete.
If all frames have been received, the tester increases the length of
the burst and performs another trial.
If the received frame count is less than the number of frames in the
burst, then the limit of DUT processing and buffering may have been
exceeded, and the burst length is reduced for the next trial.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
@@@@ Should a particular search algorithm be included?
The Back-to-back Frame value is the longest burst of frames that the
DUT can successfully process and buffer without frame loss, as
determined from the series of trials. The tester may impose a
(configurable) minimum step size for burst length, and the step size
MUST be reported with the results (as this influences the accuracy
and variation of test results).
5.3. Test Repetition
The test MUST be repeated N times for each frame size in the subset
list, and each Back-to-back Frame value made available for further
processing (below).
5.4. Benchmark Calculations
For each Frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for
Back-to-back Frame values over the N tests:
o Average (Benchmark)
o Minimum
o Maximum
o Standard Deviation
Further, calculate the Implied DUT Buffer Time and the Corrected DUT
Buffer Time in seconds, as follows:
Implied DUT Buffer Time =
Average Back-to-back Frames / Max Theoretical Frame Rate
Corrected DUT Buffer Time =
Measured Throughput
Implied DUT Buffer Time * --------------------------
Max Theoretical Frame Rate
6. Reporting
The back-to-back results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table
with a row for each of the tested frame sizes. There SHOULD be
columns for the frame size and for the resultant average frame count
for each type of data stream tested.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.
The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
tests SHOULD also be reported.
The Corrected DUT Buffer Time SHOULD also be reported.
If the tester operates using a maximum burst length in frames, then
this maximum length SHOULD be reported.
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| Frame Size, | Ave B2B | Min,Max,StdDev | Corrected Buff |
| octets | Length, frames | | Time, Sec |
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
| 64 | 26000 | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004 |
+--------------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
Back-to-Back Frame Results
Static and configuration parameters:
Number of test repetitions, N
Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.
7. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
[RFC2544].
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network.
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
8. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Trevor Cooper, Sridhar Rao, and Martin Klozik of the VSPERF
project for many contributions to the testing [VSPERF-b2b].
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 1944,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1944, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1944>.
[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>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
[RFC6815] Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
"Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815>.
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft B2B Frame Update October 2017
[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.
10.2. Informative References
[OPNFV-2017]
Cooper, T., "Dataplane Performance, Capacity, and
Benchmarking in OPNFV", June 2017.
[VSPERF-b2b]
Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)",
June 2017.
Author's Address
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
Morton Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 9]