Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: January 2005
Scott Poretsky
Quarry Technologies
Shankar Rao
Qwest Communications
July 2004
Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking
<draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-00.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or
will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed,
in accordance with RFC 3668.
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
ABSTRACT
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous
operational conditions, which is known as Stress Testing. This
document provides the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking
of networking devices. Descriptions of Test Topology, Benchmarks and
Reporting Format are provided in addition to procedures for
conducting various test cases. The methodology is to be used with
the companion terminology document [6].
Poretsky and Rao [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
2. Existing definitions ....................................... 3
3. Test Setup.................................................. 3
3.1 Test Topologies............................................ 3
3.2 Test Considerations........................................ 4
3.3 Reporting Format........................................... 4
3.3.1 Configuration Sets....................................... 4
3.3.2 Instability Conditions................................... 6
3.3.3 Benchmarks............................................... 6
4. Test Cases.................................................. 7
4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer................................... 7
4.2 BGP Route Explosion........................................ 7
4.3 Persistent BGP Flapping.................................... 8
4.4 DoS Attack................................................. 8
5. Security Considerations..................................... 9
6. References.................................................. 9
7. Author's Address............................................ 9
1. Introduction
Router testing benchmarks have consistently been made in a
monolithic fashion wherein a single protocol or behavior is
measured in an isolated environment. It is important to know the
limits for a networking device's behavior for each protocol in isolation,
however this does not produce a reliable benchmark of the device's
behavior in an operational network.
Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic
and being managed. To accurately benchmark a router for deployment
it is necessary to test that router in operational conditions by
simultaneously configuring and scaling network protocols and security
policies, forwarding traffic, and managing the device. It is helpful
to accelerate these network operational conditions with Instability
Conditions [6] so that the networking devices are stress tested.
Stress Testing of networking devices provides the following benefits:
1. Evaluation of multiple protocols enabled simultaneously as
configured in deployed networks
2. Evaluation of System and Software Stability
3. Evaluation of Manageability under stressful conditions
4. Identification of Software Coding bugs such as:
a. Memory Leaks
b. Suboptimal CPU Utilization
c. Coding Logic
These benefits produce significant advantages for network operations:
1. Increased stability of routers and protocols
2. Hardened routers to DoS attacks
3. Verified manageability under stress
4. Planning router resources for growth and scale
Poretsky and Rao [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
This document provides the Methodology for performing Stress
Benchmarking of networking devices. Descriptions of Test Topology,
Benchmarks and Reporting Format are provided in addition to
procedures for conducting various test cases. The methodology is
to be used with the companion terminology document [6].
2. Existing definitions
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.
Terms related to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [6].
3. Test Setup
3.1 Test Topologies
Figure 1 shows the physical configuration to be used for the
methodologies provided in this document. The number of
interfaces between the tester and DUT will scale depending upon
the number of control protocol sessions and traffic
forwarding interfaces. A separate device may be required to
externally manage the device in the case that the test equipment
does not support such functionality.
Figure 2 shows the logical configuration for the stress test
methodologies. Each plane may be emulated by single or
multiple test equipment.
___________
| DUT |
___|Management |
| | |
| -----------
\/
___________
| |
| DUT |
|--->| |<---|
xN | ----------- | xN
interfaces | | interfaces
| ___________ |
| | | |
|--->| Tester |<---|
| |
-----------
Figure 1. Physical Configuration
Poretsky and Rao [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
___________ ___________
| Control | | Management|
| Plane |___ ___| Plane |
| | | | | |
----------- | | -----------
\/ \/ ___________
___________ | Security |
| |<-----------| Plane |
| DUT | | |
|--->| |<---| -----------
| ----------- |
| |
| ___________ |
| | Data | |
|--->| Plane |<---|
| |
-----------
Figure 2. Logical Configuration
3.2 Test Considerations
The Accelerated Stress Benchmarking test can be applied in
service provider test environments to benchmark DUTs under
stress in an environment that is reflective of an operational
network. A particular Configuration Set is defined and the
DUT is benchmarked using this configuration set and the Instability Conditions.
Varying Configuration Sets and/or Instability Conditions applied in an iterative
fashion can provide an accurate characterization of the DUT
to help determine future network deployments.
3.3 Reporting Format
Each methodology requires reporting of information for test
repeatability when benchmarking the same or different devices.
The information that are the Configuration Sets, Instability
Conditions, and Benchmarks, as defined in [6]. Example
reporting formats for each are provided below.
3.3.1 Configuration Sets
Example Routing Protocol Configuration Set-
PARAMETER UNITS
BGP Enabled/Disabled
Number of EBGP Peers Peers
Number of IBGP Peers Peers
Number of BGP Route Instances Routes
Number of BGP Installed Routes Routes
MBGP Enabled/Disabled
Number of MBGP Route Instances Routes
Number of MBGP Installed Routes Routes
Poretsky and Rao [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
IGP Enabled/Disabled
IGP-TE Enabled/Disabled
Number of IGP Adjacencies Adjacencies
Number of IGP Routes Routes
Number of Nodes per Area Nodes
Example MPLS Protocol Configuration Set-
PARAMETER UNITS
MPLS-TE
Number of Ingress Tunnels Tunnels
Number of Mid-Point Tunnels Tunnels
Number of Egress Tunnels Tunnels
LDP
Number of Sessions Sessions
Number of FECs FECs
Example Multicast Protocol Configuration Set-
PARAMETER UNITS
PIM-SM Enabled/Disabled
RP Enabled/Disabled
Number of Multicast Groups Groups
MSDP Enabled/Disabled
Example Data Plane Configuration Set-
PARAMETER UNITS
Traffic Forwarding Enabled/Disabled
Aggregate Offered Load bps (or pps)
Number of Ingress Interfaces number
Number of Egress Interfaces number
TRAFFIC PROFILE
Packet Size(s) bytes
Packet Rate(interface) array of packets per second
Number of Flows number
Encapsulation(flow) array of encapsulation type
Management Configuration Set-
PARAMETER UNITS
SNMP GET Rate SNMP Gets/minute
Logging Enabled/Disabled
Protocol Debug Enabled/Disabled
Telnet Rate Sessions/Hour
FTP Rate Sessions/Hour
Concurrent Telnet Sessions Sessions
Concurrent FTP Session Sessions
Packet Statistics Collector Enabled/Disabled
Statistics Sampling Rate X:1 packets
Poretsky and Rao [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
Security Configuration Set -
PARAMETER UNITS
Packet Filters Enabled/Disabled
Number of Filters For-Me number
Number of Filter Rules For-Me number
Number of Traffic Filters number
Number of Traffic Filter Rules number
SSH Enabled/Disabled
Number of simultaneous SSH sessions number
RADIUS Enabled/Disabled
TACACS Enabled/Disabled
3.3.2 Instability Conditions
PARAMETER UNITS
Interface Shutdown Cycling Rate interfaces per minute
BGP Session Flap Rate sessions per minute
BGP Route Flap Rate routes per minutes
IGP Route Flap Rate routes per minutes
LSP Reroute Rate LSP per minute
Overloaded Links number
Amount Links Overloaded % of bandwidth
FTP Rate Mb/minute
IPsec Session Loss sessions per minute
Filter Policy Changes policies per minute
SSH Session Re-Start SSH sessions per minute
3.3.3 Benchmarks
PARAMETER UNITS
Stable Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps
Stable Session Count sessions
Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps
Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps
Average Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps
Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost sessions
Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps
Recovery Time seconds
Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost sessions
Poretsky and Rao [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
4. Test Cases
4.1 Failed Primary EBGP Peer
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when losing an EBGP
Peer from which most FIB routes have been learned.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Remove link to EBGP peer with most FIB routes
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
until the DUT converges from the lost EBGP link. Other DUT
operation should be stable without session loss or sustained
packet loss. Recovery time should not be infinite.
4.2 BGP Route Explosion
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when there is BGP Route
Explosion experienced in the network.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Advertise 1M BGP routes from a single EBGP peer.
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be no additional packet loss from
the advertisement of duplicate routes from a single peer. Other
DUT operation should be stable without session loss. Recovery
time should not be infinite.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
4.3 Persistent BGP Flapping
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions when flapping BGP Peering
sessions for an infinite period.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Repeatedly flap an IBGP and an EBGP peering session
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
It is expected that there will be significant packet loss
from repeated convergence events. Other DUT operation should be
stable without session loss. Recovery time should not be infinite.
4.4 DoS Attack
Objective
The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
of the DUT during stress conditions while experiencing a
DoS attack.
Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
5. Apply Instability Conditions
6. Initiate DoS Attack against DUT
7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
Results
DUT should be able to defend against DoS attack without additional
packet loss or session loss. Recovery time should be immediate.
Open issue is definition of DoS Attack for the purpose of this test.
COuld any DoS Attack be used? Should DoS Attack be defined?
Poretsky and Rao [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
5. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
networks.
6. References
[1] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.
[2] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
Devices", RFC 2285, June 1998.
[3] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
[4] "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability", Scott
Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.
[5] "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for Network
Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.
[6] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-03,
work in progress, July 2004.
7. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Quarry Technologies
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Shankar Rao
950 17th Street
Suite 1900
Qwest Communications
Denver, CO 80210
USA
Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com
Poretsky and Rao [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking July 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intel-
lectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this docu-
ment or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might
not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with
respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be
obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this stan-
dard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Warranty
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMA-
TION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 10]
