Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft J. Uttaro
Updates: ???? (if approved) AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational December 31, 2018
Expires: July 4, 2019
Benchmarks and Methods for Multihomed EVPN
draft-morton-bmwg-multihome-evpn-01
Abstract
Fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies for Network Interconnect
Devices of interest to the IETF are defined in RFC 2544. Key
benchmarks applicable to restoration and multi-homed sites are in RFC
6894. This memo applies these methods to Multihomed nodes
implemented on Ethernet Virtual Private Networks (EVPN).
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Test Setups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Procedure for Throughput Characterization . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Address Learning Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows . . . . 5
5.3. Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Address Learning Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows . . . . 6
6.3. Test Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.4. Benchmark Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The IETF's fundamental Benchmarking Methodologies are defined
in[RFC2544], supported by the terms and definitions in [RFC1242], and
[RFC2544] actually obsoletes an earlier specification, [RFC1944].
This memo recognizes the importance of Ethernet Virtual Private
Network (EVPN) Multihoming connectivity scenarios, where a CE device
is connected to 2 or more PEs using an instance of an Ethernet
Segment.
In an all-active or Active-Active scenario, CE-PE traffic is load-
balanced across two or more PEs.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
Mass-withdrawal of routes may take place when an autodiscovery route
is used on a per Ethernet Segment basis, and there is a link failure
on one of the Ethernet Segment links (or when configuration changes
take place).
Although EVPN depends on address-learning in the control-plane, the
Ethernet Segment Instance is permitted to use "the method best suited
to the CE: data-plane learning, IEEE 802.1x, the Link Layer Discovery
Protocol (LLDP), IEEE 802.1aq, Address Resolution Protocol (ARP),
management plane, or other protocols" [RFC7432].
This memo seeks to benchmark these important cases (and others).
2. Scope and Goals
The scope of this memo is to define a method to unambiguously perform
tests, measure the benchmark(s), and report the results for Capacity
of EVPN Multihoming connectivity scenarios, and other key restoration
activities (such as address withdrawl) covering link failure in the
Active-Active scenario.
The goal is to provide more efficient test procedures where possible,
and to expand reporting with additional interpretation of the
results. The tests described in this memo address some key
multihoming scenarios implemented on a Device Under Test (DUT) or
System Under Test (SUT).
3. Motivation
The Multihoming scenarios described in this memo emphsize features
with practical value to the industry that have seen deployment.
Therefore, these scenarios derserve further attention that follows
from benchmarking activities and further study.
4. Test Setups
For simple Capacity/Throughput Benchmarks, the Test Setup MUST be
consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or Figure 2 when the tester's
sender and receiver are different devices.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
+--------+ ,-----. +--------+
| | / \ | |
| | /( PE ....| |
| | / \ 1 / | |
| Test | ,-----. / `-----' | Test |
| | / \ / | |
| Device |...( CE X | Device |
| | \ 1 / \ | |
| | `-----' \ ,-----. | |
| | \ / \ | |
| | \( PE ....| |
+--------+ \ 2 / +--------+
`-----'
Figure 1 SUT for Throughput and other Ethernet Segment Tests
In this case, the System Under Test (SUT) is comprised of a single CE
device and two or more PE devices. The tester SHALL be connected to
all CE and PE, and be capable of simulateneously sending and
receiving frames on all ports in use. The tester SHALL be capable of
generating multiple flows (according to a 5-tuple definition, or any
sub-set of the 5-tuple). The tester SHALL be able to control the IP
capacity of sets of individual flows, and the presence of sets of
flows on specific interface ports.
Other mandatory testing aspects described in [RFC2544] MUST be
included, unless explicitly modified in the next section.
The ingress and egress link speeds and link layer protocols MUST be
specified and used to compute the maximum theoretical frame rate when
respecting the minimum inter-frame gap.
A second test case is where a BGP backbone implements MPLS-LDP to
provide connectivity between multiple PE - ESI - CE locations.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
Test Test
Device Device
EVI-1
+---+ ,-----. +---+
| | ESI / \ | |
| | 1 /( PE ..... ESI | |
| | / \ 1 / \ EVI 2 | |
| | ,-----. / `-----' \ ,-----. +--+| |
| | / \ / \ / \ | || |
| |...( CE X X...( PE ...|CE|| |
| | \ 1 / \ / \ 3 / | 2|| |
| | `-----' \ ,-----. / `-----' +--+| |
| | \ / \ / | |
| | \( PE ..../ | |
+---+ \ 2 / +---+
`-----'
EVI-2
Figure 2 SUT with BGP & MPLS interconnecting multiple PE-ESI-CE
locations
All Link speeds MUST be reported, along with complete device
configurations in the SUT and Test Device(s).
Additional Test Setups and configurations will be provided in this
section, after review.
One capacity benchmark pertains to the number of ESI that a network
with multiple PE - ESI - CE locations can support.
5. Procedure for Throughput Characterization
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT/SUT to process frames
between CE and one or more PEs in a multihomed connectivity scenario.
Figure 1 gives the test setup.
The Procedure follows.
5.1. Address Learning Phase
"For every address, learning frames MUST be sent to the DUT/SUT to
allow the DUT/SUT to update its address tables properly." [RFC2889]
5.2. Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows
Each trial in the test requires confiuring a number of flows (from
100 to 100k) and a fixed frame size (64 octets to 128, 256, 512,
1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, as per [RFC2544]).
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
The Procedure SHALL follow section 5.1 of [RFC2889].
5.3. Test Repetition
The test MUST be repeated N times for each frame size in the subset
list, and each Throughput value made available for further processing
(below).
5.4. Benchmark Calculations
For each Frame size, calculate the following summary statistics for
Throughput values over the N tests:
o Average (Benchmark)
o Minimum
o Maximum
o Standard Deviation
Comparison will determine how the load was balanced among PEs.
6. Procedure for Mass Withdrawal Characterization
Objective: To characterize the ability of a DUT/SUT to process frames
between CE and one or more PE in a multihomed connectivity scenario
when a mass withdrawal takes place. Figure 2 gives the test setup.
The Procedure follows.
6.1. Address Learning Phase
"For every address, learning frames MUST be sent to the DUT/SUT to
allow the DUT/SUT update its address tables properly." [RFC2889]
6.2. Test for a Single Frame Size and Number of Flows
Each trial in the test requires Confiuring a number of flows (from
100 to 100k) and a fixed frame size (64 octets to 128, 256, 512,
1024, 1280 and 1518 bytes, as per [RFC2544]).
The Offered Load SHALL be transmitted at the Throughput level
corrsponding to previously determined for the selected Frame size and
number of Flows in use.
The Procedure SHALL follow section 5.1 of [RFC2889] (except there is
no need to search for the Throughput level).
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
When traffic has been sent for 5 seconds one of the CE-PE links on
the ESI SHALL be disabled, and the time of this action SHALL be
recorded for further calculations. For example, if the CE1 link to
PE1 is disabled, this should trigger a Mass withdrawal of EVI-1
addresses, and the subsequent re-routing of traffic to PE2.
Frame losses are expected to be recorded during the restoration time.
Time for restoration may be estimated as described in section 3.5
of[RFC6412].
6.3. Test Repetition
The test MUST be repeated N times for each frame size in the subset
list, and each restoration time value made available for further
processing (below).
6.4. Benchmark Calculations
For each Frame size and number of flows, calculate the following
summary statistics for Loss (or Time to return to Throughput level
after restoration) values over the N tests:
o Average (Benchmark)
o Minimum
o Maximum
o Standard Deviation
7. Reporting
The results SHOULD be reported in the format of a table with a row
for each of the tested frame sizes and Number of Flows. There SHOULD
be columns for the frame size with number of flows, and for the
resultant average frame count (or time) for each type of data stream
tested.
The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N, MUST be reported.
The Minimum, Maximum, and Standard Deviation across all complete
tests SHOULD also be reported.
The Corrected DUT Restoration Time SHOULD also be reported, as
applicable.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
+----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
| Frame Size, | Ave Benchmark, | Min,Max,StdDev | Calculated |
| octets + # | fps, frames or | | Time, Sec |
| Flows | time | | |
+----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
| 64,100 | 26000 | 25500,27000,20 | 0.00004 |
+----------------+-------------------+----------------+-------------+
Throughput or Loss/Restoration Time Results
Static and configuration parameters:
Number of test repetitions, N
Minimum Step Size (during searches), in frames.
8. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a laboratory
environment, with dedicated address space and the other constraints
[RFC2544].
The benchmarking network topology will be an independent test setup
and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to the test
management network. See [RFC6815].
Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying
solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT specifically for
benchmarking purposes. Any implications for network security arising
from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
networks.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA.
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Aman Shaikh for sharing his comments on the draft directly
with the authors.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC1944] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 1944,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1944, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1944>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC2889] Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2889>.
[RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D.
Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network
Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5180>.
[RFC6201] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Calabria, F., and C. Olvera,
"Device Reset Characterization", RFC 6201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6201, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6201>.
[RFC6412] Poretsky, S., Imhoff, B., and K. Michielsen, "Terminology
for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route
Convergence", RFC 6412, DOI 10.17487/RFC6412, November
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6412>.
[RFC6815] Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
"Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815>.
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6985, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[OPNFV-2017]
Cooper, T., Morton, A., and S. Rao, "Dataplane
Performance, Capacity, and Benchmarking in OPNFV", June
2017,
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/10293193/
VSPERF-Dataplane-Perf-Cap-Bench.pptx?api=v2>.
[RFC8239] Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8239>.
[TST009] ETSI Network Function Virtualization ISG, "ETSI GS NFV-TST
009 V3.1.1 (2018-10), "Network Functions Virtualisation
(NFV) Release 3; Testing; Specification of Networking
Benchmarks and Measurement Methods for NFVI"", October
2018, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-
TST/001_099/009/03.01.01_60/gs_NFV-TST009v030101p.pdf>.
[VSPERF-b2b]
Morton, A., "Back2Back Testing Time Series (from CI)",
June 2017, <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
Traffic+Generator+Testing#TrafficGeneratorTesting-
AppendixB:Back2BackTestingTimeSeries(fromCI)>.
[VSPERF-BSLV]
Morton, A. and S. Rao, "Evolution of Repeatability in
Benchmarking: Fraser Plugfest (Summary for IETF BMWG)",
July 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/
slides-102-bmwg-evolution-of-repeatability-in-
benchmarking-fraser-plugfest-summary-for-ietf-bmwg-00>.
Authors' Addresses
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multihomed EVPN December 2018
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acm@research.att.com
Jim Uttaro
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Email: uttaro@att.com
Morton & Uttaro Expires July 4, 2019 [Page 11]