Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: April 2006
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Shankar Rao
Qwest Communications
October 2005
Methodology Guidelines for
Accelerated Stress Benchmarking
<draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-04.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
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 Guidelines 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 [4]. These guidelines can be used as the
basis for additional methodology documents that benchmark specific
network technologies under accelerated stress.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
2. Existing definitions ....................................... 3
3. Test Setup.................................................. 3
3.1 Test Topologies............................................ 3
3.2 Test Considerations........................................ 3
3.3 Reporting Format........................................... 4
3.3.1 Configuration Sets....................................... 5
3.3.2 Startup Conditions....................................... 6
3.3.3 Instability Conditions................................... 6
3.3.4 Benchmarks............................................... 7
4. Example Test Case Procedure................................. 7
5. IANA Considerations......................................... 8
6. Security Considerations..................................... 9
7. Normative References........................................ 9
8. Informative References......................................10
9. Author's Address............................................10
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 [4] so that the networking devices are stress tested.
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 [4].
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 Buffer Overflow conditions
5. Identification of Software Coding bugs such as:
a. Memory Leaks
b. Suboptimal CPU Utilization
c. Coding Logic
Poretsky and Rao [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
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
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[6]. RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document.
Terms related to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [4].
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.
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.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
___________
| DUT |
___|Management |
| | |
| -----------
\/
___________
| |
| DUT |
|--->| |<---|
xN | ----------- | xN
interfaces | | interfaces
| ___________ |
| | | |
|--->| Tester |<---|
| |
-----------
Figure 1. Physical Configuration
___________ ___________
| Control | | Management|
| Plane |___ ___| Plane |
| | | | | |
----------- | | -----------
\/ \/ ___________
___________ | Security |
| |<-----------| Plane |
| DUT | | |
|--->| |<---| -----------
| ----------- |
| |
| ___________ |
| | Data | |
|--->| Plane |<---|
| |
-----------
Figure 2. Logical Configuration
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 [4]. Example
reporting formats for each are provided below.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
3.3.1 Configuration Sets
Configuration Sets may include and are not limited to the following
examples.
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
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 Enabled/Disabled
Number of Tunnels as Ingress Tunnels
Number of Tunnels as Mid-Point Tunnels
Number of Tunnels as Egress Tunnels
LDP Enabled/Disabled
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
Offered Load (interface) array of bps
Number of Flows number
Encapsulation(flow) array of encapsulation type
Poretsky and Rao [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
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
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
IPsec tunnels number
SSH Enabled/Disabled
Number of simultaneous SSH sessions number
RADIUS Enabled/Disabled
TACACS Enabled/Disabled
3.3.2 Startup Conditions
Startup Conditions may include and are not limited to the following
examples:
PARAMETER UNITS
EBGP peering sessions negotiated Total EBGP Sessions
IBGP peering sessions negotiated Total IBGP Sessions
BGP routes learned rate BGP Routes per Second
ISIS adjacencies established Total ISIS Adjacencies
ISIS routes learned rate ISIS Routes per Second
IPsec tunnels negotiated Total IPsec Tunnels
IPsec tunnel establishment rate IPsec tunnels per second
3.3.3 Instability Conditions
Instability Conditions may include and are not limited to the
following examples:
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 Tunnel Flap Rate tunnels per minute
Filter Policy Changes policies per hour
SSH Session Restart SSH sessions per hour
Telnet Session Restart Telnet session per hour
Poretsky and Rao [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
3.3.4 Benchmarks
Benchmarks are as defined in [1] and listed as follow:
PARAMETER UNITS PHASE
Stable Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps Startup
Stable Latency seconds Startup
Stable Session Count sessions Startup
Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps Instability
Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps Instability
Ave. Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps Instability
Unstable Latency seconds Instability
Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost sessions Instability
Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate pps Recovery
Recovered Latency seconds Recovery
Recovery Time seconds Recovery
Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost sessions Recovery
4. Example Test Case Procedure
1. Report Configuration Set
BGP Enabled
10 EBGP Peers
30 IBGP Peers
500K BGP Route Instances
160K BGP FIB Routes
ISIS Enabled
ISIS-TE Disabled
30 ISIS Adjacencies
10K ISIS Level-1 Routes
250 ISIS Nodes per Area
MPLS Disabled
IP Multicast Disabled
IPsec Enabled
10K IPsec tunnels
640 Firewall Policies
100 Firewall Rules per Policy
Traffic Forwarding Enabled
Aggregate Offered Load 10Gbps
30 Ingress Interfaces
30 Egress Interfaces
Packet Size(s) = 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 bytes
Forwarding Rate[1..30] = 1Gbps
10000 Flows
Encapsulation[1..5000] = IPv4
Encapsulation[5001.10000] = IPsec
Poretsky and Rao [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
Logging Enabled
Protocol Debug Disabled
SNMP Enabled
SSH Enabled
20 Concurrent SSH Sessions
FTP Enabled
RADIUS Enabled
TACACS Disabled
Packet Statistics Collector Enabled
2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
10 EBGP peering sessions negotiated
30 EBGP peering sessions negotiated
1K BGP routes learned per second
30 ISIS Adjacencies
1K ISIS routes learned per second
10K IPsec tunnels negotiated
3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
4. Report Stability Benchmarks as follow:
Stable Aggregate Forwarding Rate
Stable Latency
Stable Session Count
It is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarks be measured and
recorded at one-second intervals.
5. Apply Instability Conditions
Interface Shutdown Cycling Rate = 1 interface every 5 minutes
BGP Session Flap Rate = 1 session every 10 minutes
BGP Route Flap Rate = 100 routes per minute
ISIS Route Flap Rate = 100 routes per minute
IPsec Tunnel Flap Rate = 1 tunnel per minute
Overloaded Links = 5 of 30
Amount Links Overloaded = 20%
SNMP GETs = 1 per sec
SSH Restart Rate = 10 sessions per hour
FTP Restart Rate = 10 transfers per hour
FTP Transfer Rate = 100 Mbps
Statistics Sampling Rate = 1:1 packets
6. Apply Instability Condition specific to test case.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
7. Report Instability Benchmarks as follow:
Unstable Aggregate Forwarding Rate
Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate
Ave. Degraded Aggregate Forwarding Rate
Unstable Latency
Unstable Uncontrolled Sessions Lost
It is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarks be measured and
recorded at one-second intervals.
8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
9. Report Recovery Benchmarks as follow:
Recovered Aggregate Forwarding Rate
Recovered Latency
Recovery Time
Recovered Uncontrolled Sessions Lost
It is RECOMMENDED that the benchmarks be measured and
recorded at one-second intervals.
10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
Conditions for next iteration
5. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
6. 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.
7. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, October 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] Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-07,
work in progress, October 2005.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
[5] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Data Plane
Route Convergence",
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-08, work in
progress, October 2005.
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
8. Informative References
[RFC3871] RFC 3871 "Operational Security Requirements for Large
Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure.
G. Jones, Ed.. IETF, September 2004.
[NANOG25] "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability",
Scott Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.
[IEEECQR] "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for
Network Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.
[CONVMETH] Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data
Plane Route Convergence",
draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08, work in progress,
October 2005.
9. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Shankar Rao
1801 California Street
8th Floor
Qwest Communications
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com
Poretsky and Rao [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated October 2005
Stress Benchmarking
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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.
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
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document 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 standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Poretsky and Rao [Page 11]
