Benchmarking Methodology for SDN Controller Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-05

Internet-Draft                               Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
Network Working Group                                       Anton Basil
Intended Status: Informational                       Veryx Technologies
Expires: April 01, 2018                                  Mark Tassinari
                                                        Hewlett-Packard
                                                         Vishwas Manral
                                                               Nano Sec
                                                            Sarah Banks
                                                         VSS Monitoring
                                                       October 01, 2017


          Benchmarking Methodology for SDN Controller Performance
             draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-05


Abstract

   This document defines the methodologies for benchmarking control
   plane performance of SDN controllers. Terminology related to
   benchmarking SDN controllers is described in the companion
   terminology document. SDN controllers have been implemented with
   many varying designs in order to achieve their intended network
   functionality. Hence, the authors have taken the approach of
   considering an SDN controller as a black box, defining the
   methodology in a manner that is agnostic to protocols and network
   services supported by controllers. The intent of this document is to
   provide a standard mechanism to measure the performance of all
   controller implementations.

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 http://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 April 01, 2018.





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://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...................................................4
   2. Scope..........................................................4
   3. Test Setup.....................................................5
      3.1. Test setup - Controller working in Standalone Mode........5
      3.2. Test setup - Controller working in Cluster Mode...........6
   4. Test Considerations............................................7
      4.1. Network Topology..........................................7
      4.2. Test Traffic..............................................7
      4.3. Test Emulator Requirements................................7
      4.4. Connection Setup..........................................7
      4.5. Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation........8
      4.6. Connectivity Recommendation...............................8
      4.7. Test Repeatability........................................8
   5. Benchmarking Tests.............................................9
      5.1. Performance...............................................9
         5.1.1. Network Topology Discovery Time......................9
         5.1.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time................11
         5.1.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate................12
         5.1.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time.....................15
         5.1.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time....................16
         5.1.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate.....................17
         5.1.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate....................19
         5.1.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time..............20
      5.2. Scalability..............................................22
         5.2.1. Control Session Capacity............................22
         5.2.2. Network Discovery Size..............................22
         5.2.3. Forwarding Table Capacity...........................23
      5.3. Security.................................................25
         5.3.1. Exception Handling..................................25


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


         5.3.2. Denial of Service Handling..........................26
      5.4. Reliability..............................................28
         5.4.1. Controller Failover Time............................28
         5.4.2. Network Re-Provisioning Time........................29
   6. References....................................................31
      6.1. Normative References.....................................31
      6.2. Informative References...................................31
   7. IANA Considerations...........................................31
   8. Security Considerations.......................................31
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................32
   Appendix A. Example Test Topologies..............................33
      A.1. Leaf-Spine Topology - Three Tier Network Architecture....33
      A.2. Leaf-Spine Topology - Two Tier Network Architecture......33
   Appendix B. Benchmarking Methodology using OpenFlow Controllers..34
      B.1. Protocol Overview........................................34
      B.2. Messages Overview........................................34
      B.3. Connection Overview......................................34
      B.4. Performance Benchmarking Tests...........................35
         B.4.1. Network Topology Discovery Time.....................35
         B.4.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time................36
         B.4.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate................37
         B.4.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time.....................38
         B.4.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time....................39
         B.4.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate.....................40
         B.4.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate....................41
         B.4.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time..............42
      B.5. Scalability..............................................43
         B.5.1. Control Sessions Capacity...........................43
         B.5.2. Network Discovery Size..............................43
         B.5.3. Forwarding Table Capacity...........................44
      B.6. Security.................................................46
         B.6.1. Exception Handling..................................46
         B.6.2. Denial of Service Handling..........................47
      B.7. Reliability..............................................49
         B.7.1. Controller Failover Time............................49
         B.7.2. Network Re-Provisioning Time........................50
   Authors' Addresses...............................................53












Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017



1. Introduction

   This document provides generic methodologies for benchmarking SDN
   controller performance. An SDN controller may support many
   northbound and southbound protocols, implement a wide range of
   applications, and work solely, or as a group to achieve the desired
   functionality. This document considers an SDN controller as a black
   box, regardless of design and implementation. The tests defined in
   the document can be used to benchmark SDN controller for
   performance, scalability, reliability and security independent of
   northbound and southbound protocols. These tests can be performed on
   an SDN controller running as a virtual machine (VM) instance or on a
   bare metal server.  This document is intended for those who want to
   measure the SDN controller performance as well as compare various
   SDN controllers performance.

   Conventions used in this document

   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.



2. Scope

   This document defines methodology to measure the networking metrics
   of SDN controllers. For the purpose of this memo, the SDN controller
   is a function that manages and controls Network Devices. Any SDN
   controller without a control capability is out of scope for this
   memo. The tests defined in this document enable benchmarking of SDN
   Controllers in two ways; as a standalone controller and as a cluster
   of homogeneous controllers. These tests are recommended for
   execution in lab environments rather than in live network
   deployments. Performance benchmarking of a federation of controllers
   is beyond the scope of this document. Test Setup

   The tests defined in this document enable measurement of an SDN
   controllers performance in standalone mode and cluster mode. This
   section defines common reference topologies that are later referred
   to in individual tests (Additional forwarding Plane topologies are
   provided in Appendix A).






Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


3. Test Setup

3.1. Test setup - Controller working in Standalone Mode

          +-----------------------------------------------------------+
          |               Application Plane Test Emulator             |
          |                                                           |
          |        +-----------------+      +-------------+           |
          |        |   Application   |      |   Service   |           |
          |        +-----------------+      +-------------+           |
          |                                                           |
          +-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+
                                        |
                                        |
                                        | (Northbound interfaces)
                       +-------------------------------+
                       |       +----------------+      |
                       |       | SDN Controller |      |
                       |       +----------------+      |
                       |                               |
                       |    Device Under Test (DUT)    |
                       +-------------------------------+
                                        | (Southbound interfaces)
                                        |
                                        |
          +-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+
          |                                                           |
          |          +-----------+              +-----------+         |
          |          |  Network  |l1        ln-1|  Network  |         |
          |          |  Device 1 |---- .... ----|  Device n |         |
          |          +-----------+              +-----------+         |
          |               |l0                        |ln              |
          |               |                          |                |
          |               |                          |                |
          |       +---------------+          +---------------+        |
          |       | Test Traffic  |          | Test Traffic  |        |
          |       |  Generator    |          |  Generator    |        |
          |       |    (TP1)      |          |    (TP2)      |        |
          |       +---------------+          +---------------+        |
          |                                                           |
          |              Forwarding Plane Test Emulator               |
          +-----------------------------------------------------------+

                                     Figure 1





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


3.2. Test setup - Controller working in Cluster Mode

          +-----------------------------------------------------------+
          |               Application Plane Test Emulator             |
          |                                                           |
          |        +-----------------+      +-------------+           |
          |        |   Application   |      |   Service   |           |
          |        +-----------------+      +-------------+           |
          |                                                           |
          +-----------------------------+(I2)-------------------------+
                                        |
                                        |
                                        | (Northbound interfaces)
           +---------------------------------------------------------+
           |                                                         |
           |  ------------------             ------------------      |
           | | SDN Controller 1 | <--E/W--> | SDN Controller n |     |
           |  ------------------             ------------------      |
           |                                                         |
           |                    Device Under Test (DUT)              |
           +---------------------------------------------------------+
                                        | (Southbound interfaces)
                                        |
                                        |
          +-----------------------------+(I1)-------------------------+
          |                                                           |
          |          +-----------+              +-----------+         |
          |          |  Network  |l1        ln-1|  Network  |         |
          |          |  Device 1 |---- .... ----|  Device n |         |
          |          +-----------+              +-----------+         |
          |               |l0                        |ln              |
          |               |                          |                |
          |               |                          |                |
          |       +---------------+          +---------------+        |
          |       | Test Traffic  |          | Test Traffic  |        |
          |       |  Generator    |          |  Generator    |        |
          |       |    (TP1)      |          |    (TP2)      |        |
          |       +---------------+          +---------------+        |
          |                                                           |
          |              Forwarding Plane Test Emulator               |
          +-----------------------------------------------------------+

                                     Figure 2






Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


4. Test Considerations

4.1. Network Topology

   The test cases SHOULD use Leaf-Spine topology with at least 1
   Network Device in the topology for benchmarking. The test traffic
   generators TP1 and TP2 SHOULD be connected to the first and the last
   leaf Network Device. If a test case uses test topology with 1
   Network Device, the test traffic generators TP1 and TP2 SHOULD be
   connected to the same node. However to achieve a complete
   performance characterization of the SDN controller, it is
   recommended that the controller be benchmarked for many network
   topologies and a varying number of Network Devices. This document
   includes two sample test topologies, defined in Section 10 -
   Appendix A for reference. Further, care should be taken to make sure
   that a loop prevention mechanism is enabled either in the SDN
   controller, or in the network when the topology contains redundant
   network paths.

4.2. Test Traffic

   Test traffic is used to notify the controller about the asynchronous
   arrival of new flows. The test cases SHOULD use frame sizes of 128,
   512 and 1508 bytes for benchmarking. Testing using jumbo frames are
   optional.

4.3. Test Emulator Requirements

   The Test Emulator SHOULD time stamp the transmitted and received
   control messages to/from the controller on the established network
   connections. The test cases use these values to compute the
   controller processing time.

4.4. Connection Setup

   There may be controller implementations that support unencrypted and
   encrypted network connections with Network Devices. Further, the
   controller may have backward compatibility with Network Devices
   running older versions of southbound protocols. It may be useful to
   measure the controller performance be measured with one or more
   applicable connection setup methods defined below.

     1. Unencrypted connection with Network Devices, running same
        protocol version.
     2. Unencrypted connection with Network Devices, running different
        protocol versions.
        Example:


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


          a. Controller running current protocol version and switch
             running older protocol version
          b. Controller running older protocol version and switch
             running current protocol version
     3. Encrypted connection with Network Devices, running same
        protocol version
     4. Encrypted connection with Network Devices, running different
        protocol versions.
        Example:
          a. Controller running current protocol version and switch
             running older protocol version
          b. Controller running older protocol version and switch
             running current protocol version

4.5. Measurement Point Specification and Recommendation

   The measurement accuracy depends on several factors including the
   point of observation where the indications are captured. For
   example, the notification can be observed at the controller or test
   emulator. The test operator SHOULD make the observations/
   measurements at the interfaces of test emulator unless it is
   explicitly mentioned otherwise in the individual test. In any case,
   the locations of measurement points MUST be reported.

4.6. Connectivity Recommendation

   The SDN controller in the test setup SHOULD be connected directly
   with the forwarding and the management plane test emulators to avoid
   any delays or failure introduced by the intermediate devices during
   benchmarking tests. When the controller is implemented as a virtual
   machine, details of the physical and logical connectivity MUST be
   reported.

4.7. Test Repeatability

   To increase the confidence in measured result, it is recommended
   that each test SHOULD be repeated a minimum of 10 times.

   Test Reporting

   Each test has a reporting format that contains some global and
   identical reporting components, and some individual components that
   are specific to individual tests. The following test configuration
   parameters and controller settings parameters MUST be reflected in
   the test report.

   Test Configuration Parameters:


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


     1. Controller name and version
     2. Northbound protocols and versions
     3. Southbound protocols and versions
     4. Controller redundancy mode (Standalone or Cluster Mode)
     5. Connection setup (Unencrypted or Encrypted)
     6. Network Topology (Mesh or Tree or Linear)
     7. Network Device Type (Physical or Virtual or Emulated)
     8. Number of Nodes
     9. Number of Links
     10. Dataplane Test Traffic Type
     11. Controller System Configuration (e.g., Physical or Virtual
        Machine, CPU, Memory, Caches, Operating System, Interface
        Speed, Storage)
     12. Reference Test Setup (e.g., Section 3.1 etc.,)

   Controller Settings Parameters:
     1. Topology re-discovery timeout
     2. Controller redundancy mode (e.g., active-standby etc.,)
     3. Controller state persistence enabled/disabled

   To ensure the repeatability of test, the following capabilities of
   test emulator SHOULD be reported

     1. Maximum number of Network Devices that the forwarding plane
        emulates
     2. Control message processing time (e.g., Topology Discovery
        Messages)

   One way to determine the above two values are to simulate the
   required control sessions and messages from the control plane.

5. Benchmarking Tests

5.1. Performance

5.1.1. Network Topology Discovery Time

Objective:

   The time taken by controller(s) to determine the complete network
   topology, defined as the interval starting with the first discovery
   message from the controller(s) at its Southbound interface, ending
   with all features of the static topology determined.






Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST support network discovery.
   2. Tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology
     information either through the controller's management interface,
     or northbound interface to determine if the discovery was
     successful and complete.
   3. Ensure that the controller's topology re-discovery timeout has
     been set to the maximum value to avoid initiation of re-discovery
     process in the middle of the test.

Procedure:

   1. Ensure that the controller is operational, its network
     applications, northbound and southbound interfaces are up and
     running.
   2. Establish the network connections between controller and Network
     Devices.
   3. Record the time for the first discovery message (Tm1) received
     from the controller at forwarding plane test emulator interface
     I1.
   4. Query the controller every 3 seconds to obtain the discovered
     network topology information through the northbound interface or
     the management interface and compare it with the deployed network
     topology information.
   5. Stop the trial when the discovered topology information matches
     the deployed network topology, or when the discovered topology
     information for 3 consecutive queries return the same details.
   6. Record the time last discovery message (Tmn) sent to controller
     from the forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1) when the
     trail completed successfully. (e.g., the topology matches).

Measurement:

   Topology Discovery Time Tr1 = Tmn-Tm1.

                                     Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
   Average Topology Discovery Time = -----------------------
                                           Total Trails





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Reporting Format:

   The Topology Discovery Time results MUST be reported in the format
   of a table, with a row for each successful iteration. The last row
   of the table indicates the average Topology Discovery Time.

   If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes over the same
   topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The
   X coordinate SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the Y coordinate
   SHOULD be the average Topology Discovery Time.

   If this test is repeated with same number of nodes over different
   topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
   The X coordinate SHOULD be the Topology Type, the Y coordinate
   SHOULD be the average Topology Discovery Time.

5.1.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time

Objective:

   The time taken by controller(s) to process an asynchronous message,
   defined as the interval starting with an asynchronous message from a
   network device after the discovery of all the devices by the
   controller(s), ending with a response message from the controller(s)
   at its Southbound interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   This test SHOULD use one of the test setup described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST have successfully completed the network
     topology discovery for the connected Network Devices.

Procedure:

     1. Generate asynchronous messages from every connected Network
        Device, to the SDN controller, one at a time in series from the
        forwarding plane test emulator for the trail duration.
     2. Record every request transmit (T1) timestamp and the
        corresponding response (R1) received timestamp at the
        forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1) for every
        successful message exchange.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Measurement:

                                           (R1-T1) + (R2-T2)..(Rn-Tn)
   Asynchronous Message Processing Time Tr1 = -----------------------
                                                       Nrx

    Where Nrx is the total number of successful messages exchanged

                                                 Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3..Trn
   Average Asynchronous Message Processing Time= --------------------
                                                 Total Trails

Reporting Format:

   The Asynchronous Message Processing Time results MUST be reported in
   the format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row of
   the table indicates the average Asynchronous Message Processing
   Time.

   The report should capture the following information in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.  - Successful
   messages exchanged (Nrx)

   If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes with same
   topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The
   X coordinate SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the Y coordinate
   SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing Time.

   If this test is repeated with same number of nodes using different
   topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
   The X coordinate SHOULD be the Topology Type, the Y coordinate
   SHOULD be the average Asynchronous Message Processing Time.



5.1.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate

Objective:

   Measure the number of responses to asynchronous messages (such as
   new flow arrival notification message, etc.) for which the
   controller(s) performed processing and replied with a valid and
   productive (non-trivial) response message

   This test will measure two benchmarks on Asynchronous Message
   Processing Rate using a single procedure. The two benchmarks are
   (see section 2.3.1.3 of [I-D.sdn-controller-benchmark-term]):


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   1. Loss-free Asynchronous Message Processing Rate

   2. Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate

   Here two benchmarks are determined through a series of trials where
   the number of messages are sent to the controller(s), and the
   responses from the controller(s) are counted over the trial
   duration. The message response rate and the message loss ratio are
   calculated for each trial.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller(s) MUST have successfully completed the network
     topology discovery for the connected Network Devices.
   2. Choose and record the Trial Duration (Td), the sending rate step-
     size (STEP), the tolerance on equality for two consecutive trials
     (P%),and the maximum possible message sending rate (Ntx1/Td).

Procedure:

   1. Generate asynchronous messages continuously at the maximum
     possible rate on the established connections from all the
     emulated/simulated Network Devices for the given trial Duration
     (Td).
   2. Record the total number of responses received from the controller
     (Nrx1) as well as the number of messages sent (Ntx1) to the
     controller within the trial duration(Td).
   3. Calculate the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (Tr1) and
     the Message Loss Ratio (Lr1). Ensure that the controller(s) have
     returned to normal operation.
   4. Repeat the trial by reducing the asynchronous message sending rate
     used in last trial by the STEP size.
   5. Continue repeating the trials and reducing the sending rate until
     both the maximum value of Nrxn and the Nrxn corresponding to zero
     loss ratio have been found.
   6. The trials corresponding to the benchmark levels MUST be repeated
     using the same asynchronous message rates until the responses
     received from the controller are equal (+/-P%) for two consecutive
     trials.
   7. Record the number of responses received from the controller (Nrxn)
     as well as the number of messages sent (Ntxn) to the controller in
     the last trial.


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Measurement:

                                               Nrxn
   Asynchronous Message Processing Rate Trn = -----
                                               Td

   Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate = MAX(Trn) for all n

                                             Nrxn
   Asynchronous Message Loss Ratio Lrn = 1 - -----
                                             Ntxn

   Loss-free Asynchronous Message Processing Rate = MAX(Trn) given
   Lrn=0

Reporting Format:

   The Asynchronous Message Processing Rate results MUST be reported in
   the format of a table with a row for each trial.

   The table should report the following information in addition to the
   configuration parameters captured in section 5, with columns:

   - Offered rate (Ntxn/Td)

   - Asynchronous Message Processing Rate (Trn)

   - Loss Ratio (Lr)

   - Benchmark at this iteration (blank for none, Maximum, Loss-Free)

   The results MAY be presented in the form of a graph. The X axis
   SHOULD be the Offered rate, and dual Y axes would represent
   Asynchronous Message Processing Rate and Loss Ratio, respectively.

   If this test is repeated with varying number of nodes over same
   topology, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph. The
   X axis SHOULD be the Number of nodes (N), the Y axis SHOULD be the
   Asynchronous Message Processing Rate. Both the Maximum and the Loss-
   Free Rates should be plotted for each N.

   If this test is repeated with same number of nodes over different
   topologies, the results SHOULD be reported in the form of a graph.
   The X axis SHOULD be the Topology Type, the Y axis SHOULD be the
   Asynchronous Message Processing Rate. Both the Maximum and the Loss-
   Free Rates should be plotted for each topology.



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


5.1.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time

Objective:

   The time taken by the controller to setup a path reactively between
   source and destination node, defined as the interval starting with
   the first flow provisioning request message received by the
   controller(s) at its Southbound interface, ending with the last flow
   provisioning response message sent from the controller(s) at its
   Southbound interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A. The
   number of Network Devices in the path is a parameter of the test
   that may be varied from 2 to maximum discovery size in repetitions
   of this test.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information for
     the deployed network topology.
   2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
     destination endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned.
     This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
     provisioning.
   3. Ensure that the default action for 'flow miss' in Network Device
     is configured to 'send to controller'.
   4. Ensure that each Network Device in a path requires the controller
     to make the forwarding decision while paving the entire path.

Procedure:

   1. Send a single traffic stream from the test traffic generator TP1
     to test traffic generator TP2.
   2. Record the time of the first flow provisioning request message
     sent to the controller (Tsf1) from the Network Device at the
     forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1).
   3. Wait for the arrival of first traffic frame at the Traffic
     Endpoint TP2 or the expiry of trail duration (Td).
   4. Record the time of the last flow provisioning response message
     received from the controller (Tdf1) to the Network Device at the
     forwarding plane test emulator interface (I1).





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Measurement:

    Reactive Path Provisioning Time Tr1 = Tdf1-Tsf1.

                                              Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
    Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time = -----------------------
                                              Total Trails


Reporting Format:

   The Reactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in the
   format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row of the
   table indicates the Average Reactive Path Provisioning Time

   The report should capture the following information in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.

    - Number of Network Devices in the path



5.1.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time


Objective:

   The time taken by the controller to setup a path proactively between
   source and destination node, defined as the interval starting with
   the first proactive flow provisioned in the controller(s) at its
   Northbound interface, ending with the last flow provisioning
   response message sent from the controller(s) at it Southbound
   interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information for
     the deployed network topology.
   2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
     destination endpoint for which the path has to be provisioned.
     This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
     provisioning.


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in Network Device is
     'drop'.

Procedure:

   1. Send a single traffic stream from test traffic generator TP1 to
     TP2.
   2. Install the flow entries to reach from test traffic generator TP1
     to the test traffic generator TP2 through controller's northbound
     or management interface.
   3. Wait for the arrival of first traffic frame at the test traffic
     generator TP2 or the expiry of trail duration (Td).
   4. Record the time when the proactive flow is provisioned in the
     Controller (Tsf1) at the management plane test emulator interface
     I2.
   5. Record the time of the last flow provisioning message received
     from the controller (Tdf1) at the forwarding plane test emulator
     interface I1.

Measurement:

    Proactive Flow Provisioning Time Tr1 = Tdf1-Tsf1.

                                               Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
    Average Proactive Path Provisioning Time = -----------------------
                                                Total Trails


Reporting Format:

   The Proactive Path Provisioning Time results MUST be reported in the
   format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row of the
   table indicates the Average Proactive Path Provisioning Time.

   The report should capture the following information in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.

    - Number of Network Devices in the path

5.1.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate

Objective:

   The maximum number of independent paths a controller can
   concurrently establish between source and destination nodes
   reactively, defined as the number of paths provisioned by the
   controller(s) at its Southbound interface for the flow provisioning


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   requests received for path provisioning at its Southbound interface
   between the start of the test and the expiry of given trail
   duration.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information for
     the deployed network topology.
   2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
     destination addresses for which the paths have to be provisioned.
     This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
     provisioning.
   3. Ensure that the default action for 'flow miss' in Network Device
     is configured to 'send to controller'.
   4. Ensure that each Network Device in a path requires the controller
     to make the forwarding decision while provisioning the entire
     path.

Procedure:

   1. Send traffic with unique source and destination addresses from
     test traffic generator TP1.
   2. Record total number of unique traffic frames (Ndf) received at the
     test traffic generator TP2 within the trail duration (Td).

Measurement:

                                           Ndf
    Reactive Path Provisioning Rate Tr1 = ------
                                           Td

                                               Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
    Average Reactive Path Provisioning Rate = ------------------------
                                               Total Trails


Reporting Format:

   The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in the
   format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row of the
   table indicates the Average Reactive Path Provisioning Rate.



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


    The report should capture the following information in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.

    - Number of Network Devices in the path

    - Offered rate



5.1.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate

Objective:

   Measure the maximum rate of independent paths a controller can
   concurrently establish between source and destination nodes
   proactively, defined as the number of paths provisioned by the
   controller(s) at its Southbound interface for the paths requested in
   its Northbound interface between the start of the test and the
   expiry of given trail duration . The measurement is based on
   dataplane observations of successful path activation

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST contain the network topology information for
   the deployed network topology.

   2. The controller should have the knowledge about the location of
   destination addresses for which the paths have to be provisioned.
   This can be achieved through dynamic learning or static
   provisioning.

   3. Ensure that the default action for flow miss in Network Device is
   'drop'.

Procedure:

   1. Send traffic continuously with unique source and destination
   addresses from test traffic generator TP1.

   2. Install corresponding flow entries to reach from simulated
   sources at the test traffic generator TP1 to the simulated



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   destinations at test traffic generator TP2 through controller's
   northbound or management interface.

   3. Record total number of unique traffic frames received Ndf) at the
   test traffic generator TP2 within the trail duration (Td).

Measurement:

                                            Ndf
    Proactive Path Provisioning Rate Tr1 = ------
                                            Td

                                               Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
    Average Proactive Path Provisioning Rate = -----------------------
                                               Total Trails

Reporting Format:

   The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate results MUST be reported in the
   format of a table with a row for each iteration. The last row of the
   table indicates the Average Proactive Path Provisioning Rate.

   The report should capture the following information in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.

    - Number of Network Devices in the path

    - Offered rate



5.1.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time

Objective:

   The amount of time required for the controller to detect any changes
   in the network topology, defined as the interval starting with the
   notification message received by the controller(s) at its Southbound
   interface, ending with the first topology rediscovery messages sent
   from the controller(s) at its Southbound interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST have successfully discovered the network
   topology information for the deployed network topology.

   2. The periodic network discovery operation should be configured to
   twice the Trail duration (Td) value.

Procedure:

   1. Trigger a topology change event by bringing down an active
   Network Device in the topology.

   2. Record the time when the first topology change notification is
   sent to the controller (Tcn) at the forwarding plane test emulator
   interface (I1).

   3. Stop the trail when the controller sends the first topology re-
   discovery message to the Network Device or the expiry of trail
   duration (Td).

   4. Record the time when the first topology re-discovery message is
   received from the controller (Tcd) at the forwarding plane test
   emulator interface (I1)

Measurement:

   Network Topology Change Detection Time Tr1 = Tcd-Tcn.

                                                 Tr1 + Tr2 + Tr3 .. Trn
    Average Network Topology Change Detection Time = ------------------
                                                  Total Trails


Reporting Format:

   The Network Topology Change Detection Time results MUST be reported
   in the format of a table with a row for each iteration.  The last
   row of the table indicates the average Network Topology Change Time.










Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


5.2. Scalability

5.2.1. Control Session Capacity

Objective:

   Measure the maximum number of control sessions the controller can
   maintain, defined as the number of sessions that the controller can
   accept from network devices, starting with the first control
   session, ending with the last control session that the controller(s)
   accepts at its Southbound interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Procedure:

   1. Establish control connection with controller from every Network
     Device emulated in the forwarding plane test emulator.
   2. Stop the trail when the controller starts dropping the control
     connections.
   3. Record the number of successful connections established with the
     controller (CCn) at the forwarding plane test emulator.

Measurement:

    Control Sessions Capacity = CCn.

Reporting Format:

   The Control Session Capacity results MUST be reported in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.



5.2.2. Network Discovery Size

Objective:

   Measure the network size (number of nodes, links and hosts) that a
   controller can discover, defined as the size of a network that the
   controller(s) can discover, starting from a network topology given
   by the user for discovery, ending with the topology that the
   controller(s) could successfully discover.



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller MUST support automatic network discovery.
   2. Tester should be able to retrieve the discovered topology
     information either through controller's management interface or
     northbound interface.

Procedure:

   1. Establish the network connections between controller and network
     nodes.
   2. Query the controller for the discovered network topology
     information and compare it with the deployed network topology
     information.
   3. Increase the number of nodes by 1 when the comparison is
     successful and repeat the trail.
   4. Decrease the number of nodes by 1 when the comparison fails and
     repeat the trail.
   5. Continue the trail until the comparison of step 4 is successful.
   6. Record the number of nodes for the last trail (Ns) where the
     topology comparison was successful.

Measurement:

    Network Discovery Size = Ns.

Reporting Format:

   The Network Discovery Size results MUST be reported in addition to
   the configuration parameters captured in section 5.



5.2.3. Forwarding Table Capacity

Objective:

   Measure the maximum number of flow entries a controller can manage
   in its Forwarding table.





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. The controller Forwarding table should be empty.
   2. Flow Idle time MUST be set to higher or infinite value.
   3. The controller MUST have successfully completed network topology
     discovery.
   4. Tester should be able to retrieve the forwarding table information
     either through controller's management interface or northbound
     interface.

Procedure:

   Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode:

   1. Send bi-directional traffic continuously with unique source and/or
     destination addresses from test traffic generators TP1 and TP2 at
     the asynchronous message processing rate of controller.
   2. Query the controller at a regular interval (e.g., 5 seconds) for
     the number of learnt flow entries from its northbound interface.
   3. Stop the trail when the retrieved value is constant for three
     consecutive iterations and record the value received from the last
     query (Nrp).

   Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode:

   1. Install unique flows continuously through controller's northbound
     or management interface until a failure response is received from
     the controller.
   2. Record the total number of successful responses (Nrp).

   Note:

   Some controller designs for proactive flow provisioning mode may
   require the switch to send flow setup requests in order to generate
   flow setup responses. In such cases, it is recommended to generate
   bi-directional traffic for the provisioned flows.

Measurement:

   Proactive Flow Provisioning Mode:

    Max Flow Entries = Total number of flows provisioned (Nrp)


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017



   Reactive Flow Provisioning Mode:

    Max Flow Entries = Total number of learnt flow entries (Nrp)

    Forwarding Table Capacity = Max Flow Entries.


Reporting Format:

   The Forwarding Table Capacity results MUST be tabulated with the
   following information in addition to the configuration parameters
   captured in section 5.

    - Provisioning Type (Proactive/Reactive)



5.3. Security


5.3.1. Exception Handling

Objective:

   Determine the effect of handling error packets and notifications on
   performance tests. The impact MUST be measured for the following
   performance tests

    a. Path Provisioning Rate

    b. Path Provisioning Time

    c. Network Topology Change Detection Time

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.


Prerequisite:

   1. This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline
     measurement results for the above performance tests.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   2. Ensure that the invalid messages are not dropped by the
     intermediate devices connecting the controller and Network
     Devices.

Procedure:

   1. Perform the above listed performance tests and send 1% of messages
     from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate as invalid messages
     from the connected Network Devices emulated at the forwarding
     plane test emulator.
   2. Perform the above listed performance tests and send 2% of messages
     from the Asynchronous Message Processing Rate as invalid messages
     from the connected Network Devices emulated at the forwarding
     plane test emulator.

   Note:

   Invalid messages can be frames with incorrect protocol fields or any
   form of failure notifications sent towards controller.

Measurement:

   Measurement MUST be done as per the equation defined in the
   corresponding performance test measurement section.

Reporting Format:

   The Exception Handling results MUST be reported in the format of
   table with a column for each of the below parameters and row for
   each of the listed performance tests.

    - Without Exceptions

    - With 1% Exceptions

    - With 2% Exceptions



5.3.2. Denial of Service Handling

Objective:

   Determine the effect of handling DoS attacks on performance and
   scalability tests the impact MUST be measured for the following
   tests:



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


    a. Path Provisioning Rate

    b. Path Provisioning Time

    c. Network Topology Change Detection Time

    d. Network Discovery Size

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   This test MUST be performed after obtaining the baseline measurement
   results for the above tests.

Procedure:

   1. Perform the listed tests and launch a DoS attack towards
     controller while the trail is running.

   Note:

    DoS attacks can be launched on one of the following interfaces.

     a. Northbound (e.g., Sending a huge number of requests on
       northbound interface)
     b. Management (e.g., Ping requests to controller's management
       interface)
     c. Southbound (e.g., TCP SYNC messages on southbound interface)

Measurement:

   Measurement MUST be done as per the equation defined in the
   corresponding test's measurement section.

Reporting Format:

   The DoS Attacks Handling results MUST be reported in the format of
   table with a column for each of the below parameters and row for
   each of the listed tests.

    - Without any attacks

    - With attacks


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   The report should also specify the nature of attack and the
   interface.



5.4. Reliability


5.4.1. Controller Failover Time


Objective:

   The time taken to switch from an active controller to the backup
   controller, when the controllers work in redundancy mode and the
   active controller fails, defined as the interval starting with the
   active controller bringing down, ending with the first re-discovery
   message received from the new controller at its Southbound
   interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   The test SHOULD use the test setup described in section 3.2 of this
   document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:

   1. Master controller election MUST be completed.
   2. Nodes are connected to the controller cluster as per the
     Redundancy Mode (RM).
   3. The controller cluster should have successfully completed the
     network topology discovery.
   4. The Network Device MUST send all new flows to the controller when
     it receives from the test traffic generator.
   5. Controller should have learnt the location of destination (D1) at
     test traffic generator TP2.

Procedure:

   1. Send uni-directional traffic continuously with incremental
     sequence number and source addresses from test traffic generator
     TP1 at the rate that the controller processes without any drops.
   2. Ensure that there are no packet drops observed at the test traffic
     generator TP2.
   3. Bring down the active controller.
   4. Stop the trail when a first frame received on TP2 after failover
     operation.


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   5. Record the time at which the last valid frame received (T1) at
     test traffic generator TP2 before sequence error and the first
     valid frame received (T2) after the sequence error at TP2

Measurement:

    Controller Failover Time = (T2 - T1)

    Packet Loss = Number of missing packet sequences.


Reporting Format:

   The Controller Failover Time results MUST be tabulated with the
   following information.

    - Number of cluster nodes

    - Redundancy mode

    - Controller Failover Time

    - Packet Loss

    - Cluster keep-alive interval



5.4.2. Network Re-Provisioning Time

Objective:

   The time taken to re-route the traffic by the Controller, when there
   is a failure in existing traffic paths, defined as the interval
   starting from the first failure notification message received by the
   controller, ending with the last flow re-provisioning message sent
   by the controller at its Southbound interface.

Reference Test Setup:

   This test SHOULD use one of the test setup described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A.

Prerequisite:
   1. Network with the given number of nodes and redundant paths MUST be
     deployed.



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   2. Ensure that the controller MUST have knowledge about the location
     of test traffic generators TP1 and TP2.
   3. Ensure that the controller does not pre-provision the alternate
     path in the emulated Network Devices at the forwarding plane test
     emulator.

Procedure:

   1. Send bi-directional traffic continuously with unique sequence
     number from TP1 and TP2.
   2. Bring down a link or switch in the traffic path.
   3. Stop the trail after receiving first frame after network re-
     convergence.
   4. Record the time of last received frame prior to the frame loss at
     TP2 (TP2-Tlfr) and the time of first frame received after the
     frame loss at TP2 (TP2-Tffr). There must be a gap in sequence
     numbers of these frames
   5. Record the time of last received frame prior to the frame loss at
     TP1 (TP1-Tlfr) and the time of first frame received after the
     frame loss at TP1 (TP1-Tffr).

Measurement:

    Forward Direction Path Re-Provisioning Time (FDRT)
                                              = (TP2-Tffr - TP2-Tlfr)

    Reverse Direction Path Re-Provisioning Time (RDRT)
                                              =  (TP1-Tffr - TP1-Tlfr)

    Network Re-Provisioning Time = (FDRT+RDRT)/2

    Forward Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames
    at TP1

    Reverse Direction Packet Loss = Number of missing sequence frames
    at TP2


Reporting Format:

    The Network Re-Provisioning Time results MUST be tabulated with the
   following information.

    - Number of nodes in the primary path

    - Number of nodes in the alternate path



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


    - Network Re-Provisioning Time

    - Forward Direction Packet Loss

    - Reverse Direction Packet Loss



6. References

6.1. Normative References


   [I-D.sdn-controller-benchmark-term]  Bhuvaneswaran.V, Anton Basil,
              Mark.T, Vishwas Manral, Sarah Banks, "Terminology for
              Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance",
              draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-05
              (Work in progress), October 01, 2017


6.2. Informative References


   [OpenFlow Switch Specification]  ONF,"OpenFlow Switch Specification"
              Version 1.4.0 (Wire Protocol 0x05), October 14, 2013.


7. IANA Considerations

   This document does not have any IANA requests.


8. Security Considerations

   Benchmarking tests described in this document are limited to the
   performance characterization of controller in lab environment with
   isolated network.

   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.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


   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



9. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following individuals for
   providing their valuable comments to the earlier versions of this
   document: Al Morton (AT&T), Sandeep Gangadharan (HP), M. Georgescu
   (NAIST), Andrew McGregor (Google), Scott Bradner (Harvard
   University), Jay Karthik (Cisco), Ramakrishnan (Dell), Khasanov
   Boris (Huawei), Brian Castelli (Spirent)


   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.































Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Appendix A.                 Example Test Topologies

A.1. Leaf-Spine Topology - Three Tier Network Architecture

                                 +----------+
                                 |    SDN   |
                                 |   Node   | (Core)
                                 +----------+
                                  /        \
                                 /          \
                             +------+   +------+
                             |  SDN |   | SDN  |   (Spine)
                             | Node |.. | Node |
                             +------+   +------+
                                  / \   / \
                                 /   \ /   \
                             l1 /     /     \ ln-1
                               /     / \     \
                           +--------+   +-------+
                           |  SDN   |   |  SDN  |
                           |  Node  |.. |  Node | (Leaf)
                           +--------+   +-------+

A.2. Leaf-Spine Topology - Two Tier Network Architecture

                             +------+   +------+
                             |  SDN |   | SDN  |   (Spine)
                             | Node |.. | Node |
                             +------+   +------+
                                  / \   / \
                                 /   \ /   \
                             l1 /     /     \ ln-1
                               /     / \     \
                           +--------+   +-------+
                           |  SDN   |   |  SDN  |
                           |  Node  |.. |  Node | (Leaf)
                           +--------+   +-------+












Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Appendix B. Benchmarking Methodology using OpenFlow Controllers

   This section gives an overview of OpenFlow protocol and provides
   test methodology to benchmark SDN controllers supporting OpenFlow
   southbound protocol.

B.1. Protocol Overview

   OpenFlow is an open standard protocol defined by Open Networking
   Foundation (ONF)[ OpenFlow Switch Specification], used for
   programming the forwarding plane of network switches or routers via
   a centralized controller.

B.2. Messages Overview

   OpenFlow protocol supports three messages types namely controller-
   to-switch, asynchronous and symmetric.

   Controller-to-switch messages are initiated by the controller and
   used to directly manage or inspect the state of the switch. These
   messages allow controllers to query/configure the switch (Features,
   Configuration messages), collect information from switch (Read-State
   message), send packets on specified port of switch (Packet-out
   message), and modify switch forwarding plane and state (Modify-
   State, Role-Request messages etc.).

   Asynchronous messages are generated by the switch without a
   controller soliciting them. These messages allow switches to update
   controllers to denote an arrival of new flow (Packet-in), switch
   state change (Flow-Removed, Port-status) and error (Error).

   Symmetric messages are generated in either direction without
   solicitation. These messages allow switches and controllers to set
   up connection (Hello), verify for liveness (Echo) and offer
   additional functionalities (Experimenter).

B.3. Connection Overview

   OpenFlow channel is used to exchange OpenFlow message between an
   OpenFlow switch and an OpenFlow controller. The OpenFlow channel
   connection can be setup using plain TCP or TLS. By default, a switch
   establishes single connection with SDN controller. A switch may
   establish multiple parallel connections to single controller
   (auxiliary connection) or multiple controllers to handle controller
   failures and load balancing.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


B.4. Performance Benchmarking Tests

B.4.1. Network Topology Discovery Time

Procedure:

      Network Devices               OpenFlow                    SDN
                                   Controller               Application
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |<Initialize controller     |
            |                            |app.,NB and SB interfaces> |
            |                            |                           |
            |<Deploy network with        |                           |
            | given no. of OF switches>  |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |    OFPT_HELLO Exchange     |                           |
            |<-------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |    PACKET_OUT with LLDP    |                           |
            |      to all switches       |                           |
       (Tm1)|<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-1|                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-2|                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-n|                           |
       (Tmn)|--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |      <Wait for the expiry |
            |                            |     of Trail duration (Td)>|
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |   Query the controller for|
            |                            |   discovered n/w topo.(Di)|
            |                            |<--------------------------|
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |   <Compare the discovered |
            |                            |    & offered n/w topology>|
            |                            |                           |



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Legend:

         NB: Northbound
         SB: Southbound
         OF: OpenFlow
         Tm1: Time of reception of first LLDP message from controller
         Tmn: Time of last LLDP message sent to controller


Discussion:

   The Network Topology Discovery Time can be obtained by calculating
   the time difference between the first PACKET_OUT with LLDP message
   received from the controller (Tm1) and the last PACKET_IN with LLDP
   message sent to the controller (Tmn) when the comparison is
   successful.

B.4.2. Asynchronous Message Processing Time

Procedure:

         Network Devices            OpenFlow                    SDN
                                   Controller               Application
            |                            |                           |
            |PACKET_IN with single       |                           |
            |OFP match header            |                           |
        (T0)|--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            | PACKET_OUT with single OFP |                           |
            |              action header |                           |
        (R0)|<---------------------------|                           |
            |          .                 |                           |
            |          .                 |                           |
            |          .                 |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |PACKET_IN with single OFP   |                           |
            |match header                |                           |
        (Tn)|--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            | PACKET_OUT with single OFP |                           |
            |               action header|                           |
        (Rn)|<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |<Wait for the expiry of     |                           |
            |Trail duration>              |                          |
            |                            |                           |
            |<Record the number of       |                           |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


            |PACKET_INs/PACKET_OUTs      |                           |
            |Exchanged (Nrx)>            |                           |
            |                            |                           |


Legend:

         T0,T1, ..Tn are PACKET_IN messages transmit timestamps.
         R0,R1, ..Rn are PACKET_OUT messages receive timestamps.
         Nrx : Number of successful PACKET_IN/PACKET_OUT message
   exchanges

Discussion:

   The Asynchronous Message Processing Time will be obtained by sum of
   ((R0-T0),(R1-T1)..(Rn - Tn))/ Nrx.

B.4.3. Asynchronous Message Processing Rate

Procedure:

         Network Devices           OpenFlow                    SDN
                                  Controller               Application
            |                            |                           |
            |PACKET_IN with single OFP   |                           |
            |match headers               |                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            | PACKET_OUT with single     |                           |
            |          OFP action headers|                           |
            |<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |PACKET_IN with single OFP   |                           |
            |match headers               |                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            | PACKET_OUT with single     |                           |
            |          OFP action headers|                           |
            |<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |<Repeat the steps until the |                           |
            |expiry of Trial Duration>   |                           |
            |                            |                           |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


            |<Record the number of OFP   |                           |
      (Ntx1)|match headers sent>         |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |<Record the number of OFP   |                           |
      (Nrx1)|action headers rcvd>        |                           |
            |                            |                           |

   Note: The Ntx1 on initial trials should be greater than Nrx1 and
   repeat the trials until the Nrxn for two consecutive trials equeal
   to (+/-P%).

Discussion:

   This test will measure two benchmarks using single procedure. 1) The
   Maximum Asynchronous Message Processing Rate will be obtained by
   calculating the maximum PACKET OUTs (Nrxn) received from the
   controller(s) across n trials. 2) The Loss-free Asynchronous Message
   Processing Rate will be obtained by calculating the maximum PACKET
   OUTs received from controller (s) when Loss Ratio equals zero. The
   loss ratio is obtained by 1 - Nrxn/Ntxn

B.4.4. Reactive Path Provisioning Time

Procedure:

       Test Traffic     Test Traffic      Network Devices    OpenFlow
      Generator TP1    Generator TP2                         Controller
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |G-ARP (D1)            |                   |
            |             |--------------------->|                   |
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |                      |PACKET_IN(D1)      |
            |             |                      |------------------>|
            |             |                      |                   |
            |Traffic (S1,D1)                     |                   |
      (Tsf1)|----------------------------------->|                   |
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |                      |PACKET_IN(S1,D1)   |
            |             |                      |------------------>|
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |                      |  FLOW_MOD(D1)     |
            |             |                      |<------------------|
            |             |                      |                   |
            |             |Traffic (S1,D1)       |                   |
            |       (Tdf1)|<---------------------|                   |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


            |             |                      |                   |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
         Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1
         Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2

Discussion:

   The Reactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding the
   time difference between the transmit and receive time of the traffic
   (Tsf1-Tdf1).

B.4.5. Proactive Path Provisioning Time

Procedure:

   Test Traffic  Test Traffic    Network Devices OpenFlow        SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                  Controller  Application
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |G-ARP (D1)     |                |              |
        |             |-------------->|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |PACKET_IN(D1)   |              |
        |             |               |--------------->|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |Traffic (S1,D1)              |                |              |
   Tsf1)|---------------------------->|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |                | <Install flow|
        |             |               |                |  for S1,D1>  |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |  FLOW_MOD(D1)  |              |
        |             |               |<---------------|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |Traffic (S1,D1)|                |              |
        |       (Tdf1)|<--------------|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
         Tsf1: Time of first frame sent from TP1
         Tdf1: Time of first frame received from TP2




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Discussion:

   The Proactive Path Provisioning Time can be obtained by finding the
   time difference between the transmit and receive time of the traffic
   (Tsf1-Tdf1).

B.4.6. Reactive Path Provisioning Rate

Procedure:

       Test Traffic     Test Traffic   Network Devices         OpenFlow
      Generator TP1    Generator TP2                         Controller
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |G-ARP (D1..Dn)      |                      |
            |             |--------------------|                      |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)     |
            |             |                    |--------------------->|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn)           |                      |
            |--------------------------------->|                      |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |PACKET_IN(S1.Sn,D1.Dn)|
            |             |                    |--------------------->|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(S1)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(D1)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(S2)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(D2)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |             .        |
            |             |                    |             .        |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(Sn)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |        FLOW_MOD(Dn)  |
            |             |                    |<---------------------|
            |             |                    |                      |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


            |             | Traffic (S1..Sn,   |                      |
            |             |             D1..Dn)|                      |
            |             |<-------------------|                      |
            |             |                    |                      |
            |             |                    |                      |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
         D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ....
                 Destination Endpoint n
         S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 .., Source
   Endpoint n

Discussion:

   The Reactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding the
   total number of frames received at TP2 after the trail duration.

B.4.7. Proactive Path Provisioning Rate

Procedure:

   Test Traffic  Test Traffic   Network Devices  OpenFlow        SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                  Controller  Application
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |G-ARP (D1..Dn) |                |              |
        |             |-------------->|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |PACKET_IN(D1.Dn)|              |
        |             |               |--------------->|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn)      |                |              |
   Tsf1)|---------------------------->|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |                | <Install flow|
        |             |               |                |  for S1,D1>  |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |                |       .      |
        |             |               |                | <Install flow|
        |             |               |                |  for Sn,Dn>  |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |  FLOW_MOD(S1)  |              |
        |             |               |<---------------|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |  FLOW_MOD(D1)  |              |
        |             |               |<---------------|              |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |       .        |              |
        |             |               |  FLOW_MOD(Sn)  |              |
        |             |               |<---------------|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |               |  FLOW_MOD(Dn)  |              |
        |             |               |<---------------|              |
        |             |               |                |              |
        |             |Traffic (S1.Sn,|                |              |
        |             |         D1.Dn)|                |              |
        |       (Tdf1)|<--------------|                |              |
        |             |               |                |              |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
         D1..Dn: Destination Endpoint 1, Destination Endpoint 2 ....
                 Destination Endpoint n
         S1..Sn: Source Endpoint 1, Source Endpoint 2 .., Source
   Endpoint n

Discussion:

   The Proactive Path Provisioning Rate can be obtained by finding the
   total number of frames received at TP2 after the trail duration

B.4.8. Network Topology Change Detection Time

Procedure:

       Network Devices              OpenFlow                    SDN
                                   Controller               Application
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |     <Bring down a link in |
            |                            |                 switch S1>|
            |                            |                           |
         T0 |PORT_STATUS with link down  |                           |
            | from S1                    |                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |First PACKET_OUT with LLDP  |                           |
            |to OF Switch                |                           |
         T1 |<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |       <Record time of 1st |
            |                            |   PACKET_OUT with LLDP T1>|



Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Discussion:

   The Network Topology Change Detection Time can be obtained by
   finding the difference between the time the OpenFlow switch S1 sends
   the PORT_STATUS message (T0) and the time that the OpenFlow
   controller sends the first topology re-discovery message (T1) to
   OpenFlow switches.

B.5. Scalability

B.5.1. Control Sessions Capacity

Procedure:

         Network Devices                        OpenFlow
                                               Controller
            |                                       |
            |    OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 1   |
            |<------------------------------------->|
            |                                       |
            |    OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch 2   |
            |<------------------------------------->|
            |                  .                    |
            |                  .                    |
            |                  .                    |
            |    OFPT_HELLO Exchange for Switch n   |
            |X<----------------------------------->X|
            |                                       |

Discussion:

   The value of Switch n-1 will provide Control Sessions Capacity.

B.5.2. Network Discovery Size

Procedure:

       Network Devices              OpenFlow                    SDN
                                   Controller               Application
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |     <Deploy network with  |
            |                            |given no. of OF switches N>|
            |                            |                           |
            |    OFPT_HELLO Exchange     |                           |
            |<-------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |    PACKET_OUT with LLDP    |                           |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


            |      to all switches       |                           |
            |<---------------------------|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-1|                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-2|                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |            .               |                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |         PACKET_IN with LLDP|                           |
            |          rcvd from switch-n|                           |
            |--------------------------->|                           |
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |      <Wait for the expiry |
            |                            |    of Trail duration (Td)>|
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |   Query the controller for|
            |                            |   discovered n/w topo.(N1)|
            |                            |<--------------------------|
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |   <If N1==N repeat Step 1 |
            |                            |with N+1 nodes until N1<N >|
            |                            |                           |
            |                            |   <If N1<N repeat Step 1  |
            |                            | with N=N1 nodes once and  |
            |                            | exit>                     |
            |                            |                           |

Legend:

         n/w topo: Network Topology
         OF: OpenFlow

Discussion:

   The value of N1 provides the Network Discovery Size value. The trail
   duration can be set to the stipulated time within which the user
   expects the controller to complete the discovery process.

B.5.3. Forwarding Table Capacity





Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Procedure:


   Test Traffic      Network Devices      OpenFlow             SDN
   Generator TP1                         Controller        Application
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |G-ARP (H1..Hn)    |                   |                 |
        |----------------->|                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)  |                 |
        |                  |------------------>|                 |
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |<Wait for 5 secs>|
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |  <Query for FWD |
        |                  |                   |          entry> |(F1)
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |<Wait for 5 secs>|
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |  <Query for FWD |
        |                  |                   |          entry> |(F2)
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |<Wait for 5 secs>|
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   |  <Query for FWD |
        |                  |                   |          entry> |(F3)
        |                  |                   |                 |
        |                  |                   | <Repeat Step 2  |
        |                  |                   |until F1==F2==F3>|
        |                  |                   |                 |

   Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
         H1..Hn: Host 1 .. Host n
         FWD: Forwarding Table

   Discussion:

   Query the controller forwarding table entries for multiple times
   until the three consecutive queries return the same value. The last
   value retrieved from the controller will provide the Forwarding
   Table Capacity value. The query interval is user configurable. The 5
   seconds shown in this example is for representational purpose.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 45]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


B.6. Security

B.6.1. Exception Handling

Procedure:

   Test Traffic  Test Traffic   Network Devices  OpenFlow        SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                  Controller  Application
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |G-ARP (D1..Dn)     |                 |            |
       |          |------------------>|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)|            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn)       |                 |            |
       |----------------------------->|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |PACKET_IN(S1..Sa,|            |
       |          |                   |          D1..Da)|            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |PACKET_IN(Sa+1.. |            |
       |          |                   |.Sn,Da+1..Dn)    |            |
       |          |                   |(1% incorrect OFP|            |
       |          |                   |    Match header)|            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   | FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn)|            |
       |          |                   |<----------------|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sa)|            |
       |          |                   |      OFP headers|            |
       |          |                   |<----------------|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |Traffic (S1..Sa,   |                 |            |
       |          |            D1..Da)|                 |            |
       |          |<------------------|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |  <Wait for |
       |          |                   |                 |      Test  |
       |          |                   |                 |   Duration>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |  <Record Rx|
       |          |                   |                 |   frames at|
       |          |                   |                 |  TP2 (Rn1)>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 46]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


       |          |                   |                 |    <Repeat |
       |          |                   |                 | Step1 with |
       |          |                   |                 |2% incorrect|
       |          |                   |                 | PACKET_INs>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |  <Record Rx|
       |          |                   |                 |   frames at|
       |          |                   |                 |  TP2 (Rn2)>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP
         PACKET_IN(Sa+1..Sn,Da+1..Dn): OpenFlow PACKET_IN with wrong
               version number
         Rn1: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 with
              1% incorrect frames
         Rn2: Total number of frames received at Test Port 2 with
              2% incorrect frames

Discussion:

   The traffic rate sent towards OpenFlow switch from Test Port 1
   should be 1% higher than the Path Programming Rate. Rn1 will provide
   the Path Provisioning Rate of controller at 1% of incorrect frames
   handling and Rn2 will provide the Path Provisioning Rate of
   controller at 2% of incorrect frames handling.

   The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the
   effect of handling error packets on Path Programming Rate. Same
   procedure can be adopted to determine the effects on other
   performance tests listed in this benchmarking tests.

B.6.2. Denial of Service Handling

Procedure:

   Test Traffic  Test Traffic   Network Devic    OpenFlow        SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                  Controller  Application
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |G-ARP (D1..Dn)     |                 |            |
       |          |------------------>|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |PACKET_IN(D1..Dn)|            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1..Dn)       |                 |            |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 47]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


       |----------------------------->|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |PACKET_IN(S1..Sn,|            |
       |          |                   |          D1..Dn)|            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |TCP SYN Attack   |            |
       |          |                   |from a switch    |            |
       |          |                   |---------------->|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |FLOW_MOD(D1..Dn) |            |
       |          |                   |<----------------|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   | FLOW_MOD(S1..Sn)|            |
       |          |                   |      OFP headers|            |
       |          |                   |<----------------|            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |Traffic (S1..Sn,   |                 |            |
       |          |            D1..Dn)|                 |            |
       |          |<------------------|                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |  <Wait for |
       |          |                   |                 |      Test  |
       |          |                   |                 |   Duration>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |
       |          |                   |                 |  <Record Rx|
       |          |                   |                 |   frames at|
       |          |                   |                 |  TP2 (Rn1)>|
       |          |                   |                 |            |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP


Discussion:

   TCP SYN attack should be launched from one of the emulated/simulated
   OpenFlow Switch. Rn1 provides the Path Programming Rate of
   controller uponhandling denial of service attack.

   The procedure defined above provides test steps to determine the
   effect of handling denial of service on Path Programming Rate. Same
   procedure can be adopted to determine the effects on other
   performance tests listed in this benchmarking tests.




Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 48]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


B.7. Reliability


B.7.1. Controller Failover Time


Procedure:


   Test Traffic  Test Traffic  Network Device    OpenFlow        SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                  Controller  Application
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |G-ARP (D1)   |                 |               |
       |             |------------>|                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |PACKET_IN(D1)    |               |
       |             |             |---------------->|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |Traffic (S1..Sn,D1)        |                 |               |
       |-------------------------->|                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |PACKET_IN(S1,D1) |               |
       |             |             |---------------->|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |FLOW_MOD(D1)     |               |
       |             |             |<----------------|               |
       |             |             |FLOW_MOD(S1)     |               |
       |             |             |<----------------|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1)|               |               |
       |             |<------------|                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |PACKET_IN(S2,D1) |               |
       |             |             |---------------->|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |FLOW_MOD(S2)     |               |
       |             |             |<----------------|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |PACKET_IN(Sn-1,D1)|              |
       |             |             |---------------->|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |PACKET_IN(Sn,D1) |               |
       |             |             |---------------->|               |
       |             |             |       .         |               |
       |             |             |       .         |<Bring down the|
       |             |             |       .         |active control-|


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 49]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


       |             |             |                 |       ler>    |
       |             |             |  FLOW_MOD(Sn-1) |               |
       |             |             |    <-X----------|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |FLOW_MOD(Sn)     |               |
       |             |             |<----------------|               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |Traffic (Sn,D1)|               |               |
       |             |<------------|                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |               |
       |             |             |                 |<Stop the test |
       |             |             |                 |after recv.    |
       |             |             |                 |traffic upon   |
       |             |             |                 | failure>      |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP.

Discussion:

   The time difference between the last valid frame received before the
   traffic loss and the first frame received after the traffic loss
   will provide the controller failover time.

   If there is no frame loss during controller failover time, the
   controller failover time can be deemed negligible.

B.7.2. Network Re-Provisioning Time

Procedure:

   Test Traffic  Test Traffic   Network Devices  OpenFlow         SDN
   Generator TP1 Generator TP2                 Controller   Application
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |G-ARP (D1)     |                 |              |
       |             |-------------->|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |PACKET_IN(D1)    |              |
       |             |               |---------------->|              |
       |              G-ARP (S1)     |                 |              |
       |---------------------------->|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |PACKET_IN(S1)    |              |
       |             |               |---------------->|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |Traffic (S1,D1,Seq.no (1..n))|                 |              |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 50]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


       |---------------------------->|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |PACKET_IN(S1,D1) |              |
       |             |               |---------------->|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (D1,S1,|                 |              |
       |             | Seq.no (1..n))|                 |              |
       |             |-------------->|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |PACKET_IN(D1,S1) |              |
       |             |               |---------------->|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |FLOW_MOD(D1)     |              |
       |             |               |<----------------|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |FLOW_MOD(S1)     |              |
       |             |               |<----------------|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1,|                 |              |
       |             |     Seq.no(1))|                 |              |
       |             |<--------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1,|                 |              |
       |             |     Seq.no(2))|                 |              |
       |             |<--------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |    Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(1))|                 |              |
       |<----------------------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |    Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(2))|                 |              |
       |<----------------------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |    Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(x))|                 |              |
       |<----------------------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1,|                 |              |
       |             |     Seq.no(x))|                 |              |
       |             |<--------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |  <Bring down |
       |             |               |                 | the switch in|
       |             |               |                 |active traffic|
       |             |               |                 |       path>  |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |PORT_STATUS(Sa)  |              |


Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 51]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


       |             |               |---------------->|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1,|                 |              |
       |             |   Seq.no(n-1))|                 |              |
       |             |  X<-----------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |  Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(n-1))|                 |              |
       |    X------------------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |FLOW_MOD(D1)     |              |
       |             |               |<----------------|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |FLOW_MOD(S1)     |              |
       |             |               |<----------------|              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |    Traffic (D1,S1,Seq.no(n))|                 |              |
       |<----------------------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |Traffic (S1,D1,|                 |              |
       |             |     Seq.no(n))|                 |              |
       |             |<--------------|                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |              |
       |             |               |                 |<Stop the test|
       |             |               |                 |  after recv. |
       |             |               |                 |  traffic upon|
       |             |               |                 |   failover>  |

Legend:

         G-ARP: Gratuitous ARP message.
         Seq.no: Sequence number.
         Sa: Neighbor switch of the switch that was brought down.

   Discussion:

   The time difference between the last valid frame received before the
   traffic loss (Packet number with sequence number x) and the first
   frame received after the traffic loss (packet with sequence number
   n) will provide the network path re-provisioning time.

   Note that the trail is valid only when the controller provisions the
   alternate path upon network failure.






Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 52]


Internet-Draft SDN Controller Benchmarking Methodology     October 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
   Veryx Technologies Inc.
   1 International Plaza, Suite 550
   Philadelphia
   PA 19113

   Email: bhuvaneswaran.vengainathan@veryxtech.com

   Anton Basil
   Veryx Technologies Inc.
   1 International Plaza, Suite 550
   Philadelphia
   PA 19113

   Email: anton.basil@veryxtech.com

   Mark Tassinari
   Hewlett-Packard,
   8000 Foothills Blvd,
   Roseville, CA 95747

   Email: mark.tassinari@hpe.com

   Vishwas Manral
   Nano Sec,
   CA

   Email: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

   Sarah Banks
   VSS Monitoring
   930 De Guigne Drive,
   Sunnyvale, CA

   Email: sbanks@encrypted.net












Bhuvan, et al.          Expires April 01, 2018                [Page 53]