Benchmarking Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
RFC 8204
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (September 2017) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Maryam Tahhan , Billy O'Mahony , Al Morton | ||
| Last updated | 2017-09-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-03)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Sarah Banks | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-04-19 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8204 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Warren "Ace" Kumari | ||
| Send notices to | Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 8204
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Tahhan
Request for Comments: 8204 B. O'Mahony
Category: Informational Intel
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Morton
AT&T Labs
September 2017
Benchmarking Virtual Switches in the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV)
Abstract
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on Virtual Switch Performance (VSPERF), particularly
in the areas of test setups and configuration parameters for the
system under test. This project has extended the current and
completed work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group in the
IETF and references existing literature. The Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group has traditionally conducted laboratory
characterization of dedicated physical implementations of
internetworking functions. Therefore, this memo describes the
additional considerations when virtual switches are implemented on
general-purpose hardware. The expanded tests and benchmarks are also
influenced by the OPNFV mission to support virtualization of the
"telco" infrastructure.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8204.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Benchmarking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks . . . . . . . 6
3.3. New Configuration Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Benchmarks Using Baselines with Resource Isolation . . . 9
4. VSPERF Specification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1. Speed of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Accuracy of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Reliability of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Scale of Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. Speed of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.6. Accuracy of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.7. Reliability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.8. Scalability of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
1. Introduction
The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has traditionally
conducted laboratory characterization of dedicated physical
implementations of internetworking functions. The black-box
benchmarks of throughput, latency, forwarding rates, and others have
served our industry for many years. Now, Network Function
Virtualization (NFV) has the goal of transforming how internetwork
functions are implemented and therefore has garnered much attention.
A virtual switch (vSwitch) is an important aspect of the NFV
infrastructure; it provides connectivity between and among physical
network functions and virtual network functions. As a result, there
are many vSwitch benchmarking efforts but few specifications to guide
the many new test design choices. This is a complex problem and an
industry-wide work in progress. In the future, several of BMWG's
fundamental specifications will likely be updated as more testing
experience helps to form consensus around new methodologies, and BMWG
should continue to collaborate with all organizations that share the
same goal.
This memo describes the contributions of the Open Platform for NFV
(OPNFV) project on Virtual Switch Performance (VSPERF)
characterization through the Danube 3.0 (fourth) release [DanubeRel]
to the chartered work of the BMWG (with stable references to their
test descriptions). This project has extended the current and
completed work of the BMWG IETF and references existing literature.
For example, the most often referenced RFC is [RFC2544] (which
depends on [RFC1242]), so the foundation of the benchmarking work in
OPNFV is common and strong. The recommended extensions are
specifically in the areas of test setups and configuration parameters
for the system under test.
See [VSPERFhome] for more background and the OPNFV website for
general information [OPNFV].
The authors note that OPNFV distinguishes itself from other open
source compute and networking projects through its emphasis on
existing "telco" services as opposed to cloud computing. There are
many ways in which telco requirements have different emphasis on
performance dimensions when compared to cloud computing: support for
and transfer of isochronous media streams is one example.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
1.1. 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.
1.2. Abbreviations
For the purposes of this document, the following abbreviations apply:
ACK Acknowledge
ACPI Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
BIOS Basic Input Output System
BMWG Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
CPDP Control Plane Data Plane
CPU Central Processing Unit
DIMM Dual In-line Memory Module
DPDK Data Plane Development Kit
DUT Device Under Test
GRUB Grand Unified Bootloader
ID Identification
IMIX Internet Mix
IP Internet Protocol
IPPM IP Performance Metrics
LAN Local Area Network
LTD Level Test Design
NFV Network Functions Virtualization
NIC Network Interface Card
NUMA Non-uniform Memory Access
OPNFV Open Platform for NFV
OS Operating System
PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect
PDV Packet Delay Variation
SR/IOV Single Root / Input Output Virtualization
SUT System Under Test
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TSO TCP Segment Offload
UDP User Datagram Protocol
VM Virtual Machine
VNF Virtualised Network Function
VSPERF OPNFV vSwitch Performance Project
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
2. Scope
The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to describe key aspects
of vSwitch benchmarking, particularly in the areas of test setups and
configuration parameters for the system under test, and extend the
body of extensive BMWG literature and experience. Initial feedback
indicates that many of these extensions may be applicable beyond this
memo's current scope (to hardware switches in the NFV infrastructure
and to virtual routers, for example). Additionally, this memo serves
as a vehicle to include more detail and relevant commentary from BMWG
and other open source communities under BMWG's chartered work to
characterize the NFV infrastructure.
The benchmarking covered in this memo should be applicable to many
types of vSwitches and remain vSwitch agnostic to a great degree.
There has been no attempt to track and test all features of any
specific vSwitch implementation.
3. Benchmarking Considerations
This section highlights some specific considerations (from [RFC8172])
related to benchmarks for virtual switches. The OPNFV project is
sharing its present view on these areas as they develop their
specifications in the Level Test Design (LTD) document as defined by
[IEEE829].
3.1. Comparison with Physical Network Functions
To compare the performance of virtual designs and implementations
with their physical counterparts, identical benchmarks are needed.
BMWG has developed specifications for many physical network
functions. The BMWG has recommended reusing existing benchmarks and
methods in [RFC8172], and the OPNFV LTD expands on them as described
here. A key configuration aspect for vSwitches is the number of
parallel CPU cores required to achieve comparable performance with a
given physical device or whether some limit of scale will be reached
before the vSwitch can achieve the comparable performance level.
It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application
running on the SUT, so CPU utilization, cache utilization, and memory
footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of
internetworking functions. However, internally measured metrics such
as these are not benchmarks; they may be useful for the audience
(e.g., operations) to know and may also be useful if there is a
problem encountered during testing.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
Benchmark comparability between virtual and physical/hardware
implementations of equivalent functions will likely place more
detailed and exact requirements on the "testing systems" (in terms of
stream generation, algorithms to search for maximum values, and their
configurations). This is another area for standards development to
appreciate; however, this is a topic for a future document.
3.2. Continued Emphasis on Black-Box Benchmarks
External observations remain essential as the basis for benchmarks.
Internal observations with a fixed specification and interpretation
will be provided in parallel to assist the development of operations
procedures when the technology is deployed.
3.3. New Configuration Parameters
A key consideration when conducting any sort of benchmark is trying
to ensure the consistency and repeatability of test results. When
benchmarking the performance of a vSwitch, there are many factors
that can affect the consistency of results; one key factor is
matching the various hardware and software details of the SUT. This
section lists some of the many new parameters that this project
believes are critical to report in order to achieve repeatability.
It has been the goal of the project to produce repeatable results,
and a large set of the parameters believed to be critical is provided
so that the benchmarking community can better appreciate the increase
in configuration complexity inherent in this work. The parameter set
below is assumed sufficient for the infrastructure in use by the
VSPERF project to obtain repeatable results from test to test.
Hardware details (platform, processor, memory, and network)
including:
o BIOS version, release date, and any configurations that were
modified
o Power management at all levels (ACPI sleep states, processor
package, OS, etc.)
o CPU microcode level
o Number of enabled cores
o Number of cores used for the test
o Memory information (type and size)
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
o Memory DIMM configurations (quad rank performance may not be the
same as dual rank) in size, frequency, and slot locations
o Number of physical NICs and their details (manufacturer, versions,
type, and the PCI slot they are plugged into)
o NIC interrupt configuration (and any special features in use)
o PCI configuration parameters (payload size, early ACK option,
etc.)
Software details including:
o OS RunLevel
o OS version (for host and VNF)
o Kernel version (for host and VNF)
o GRUB boot parameters (for host and VNF)
o Hypervisor details (type and version)
o Selected vSwitch, version number, or commit ID used
o vSwitch launch command line if it has been parameterized
o Memory allocation to the vSwitch
o Which NUMA node it is using and how many memory channels
o DPDK or any other software dependency version number or commit ID
used
o Memory allocation to a VM - if it's from Hugepages/elsewhere
o VM storage type - snapshot, independent persistent, independent
non-persistent
o Number of VMs
o Number of virtual NICs (vNICs) - versions, type, and driver
o Number of virtual CPUs and their core affinity on the host
o Number of vNICs and their interrupt configurations
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
o Thread affinitization for the applications (including the vSwitch
itself) on the host
o Details of resource isolation, such as CPUs designated for Host/
Kernel (isolcpu) and CPUs designated for specific processes
(taskset).
Test traffic information:
o Test duration
o Number of flows
o Traffic type - UDP, TCP, and others
o Frame Sizes - fixed or IMIX [RFC6985] (note that with
[IEEE802.1ac], frames may be longer than 1500 bytes and up to 2000
bytes)
o Deployment Scenario - defines the communications path in the SUT
3.4. Flow Classification
Virtual switches group packets into flows by processing and matching
particular packet or frame header information, or by matching packets
based on the input ports. Thus, a flow can be thought of as a
sequence of packets that have the same set of header field values or
have arrived on the same physical or logical port. Performance
results can vary based on the parameters the vSwitch uses to match
for a flow. The recommended flow classification parameters for any
vSwitch performance tests are: the input port (physical or logical),
the source MAC address, the destination MAC address, the source IP
address, the destination IP address, and the Ethernet protocol type
field (although classification may take place on other fields, such
as source and destination transport port numbers). It is essential
to increase the flow timeout time on a vSwitch before conducting any
performance tests that do not intend to measure the flow setup time
(see Section 3 of [RFC2889]). Normally, the first packet of a
particular stream will install the flow in the virtual switch, which
introduces additional latency; subsequent packets of the same flow
are not subject to this latency if the flow is already installed on
the vSwitch.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
3.5. Benchmarks Using Baselines with Resource Isolation
This outline describes the measurement of baselines with isolated
resources at a high level, which is the intended approach at this
time.
1. Baselines:
* Optional: Benchmark platform forwarding capability without a
vSwitch or VNF for at least 72 hours (serves as a means of
platform validation and a means to obtain the base performance
for the platform in terms of its maximum forwarding rate and
latency).
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | Simple Forwarding App | | Host
| | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Benchmark Platform Forwarding Capability
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
* Benchmark VNF forwarding capability with direct connectivity
(vSwitch bypass, e.g., SR/IOV) for at least 72 hours (serves
as a means of VNF validation and a means to obtain the base
performance for the VNF in terms of its maximum forwarding
rate and latency). The metrics gathered from this test will
serve as a key comparison point for vSwitch bypass
technologies performance and vSwitch performance.
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ __ |
| +------------------------------------------+ | | |
| | | | Host/ |
| | VNF | | Guest |
| | | | | |
| +------------------------------------------+ | __| |
| | Passthrough/SR-IOV | | Host
| +------------------------------------------+ | |
| | NIC | | |
+---+------------------------------------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Benchmark VNF Forwarding Capability
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone and with other
resources (both hardware and software) disabled; for example,
vSwitch and VM are SUT.
* Benchmarking with isolated resources alone, thus leaving some
resources unused.
* Benchmarking with isolated resources and all resources
occupied.
2. Next Steps:
* Limited sharing
* Production scenarios
* Stressful scenarios
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
4. VSPERF Specification Summary
The overall specification in preparation is referred to as a Level
Test Design (LTD) document, which will contain a suite of performance
tests. The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the
pre-existing specifications developed by the BMWG to test the
performance of physical switches. These specifications include:
o Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
[RFC2544]
o Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching [RFC2889]
o Device Reset Characterization [RFC6201]
o Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement [RFC5481]
The two most recent RFCs above ([RFC6201] and [RFC5481]) are being
applied in benchmarking for the first time and represent a
development challenge for test equipment developers. Fortunately,
many members of the testing system community have engaged on the
VSPERF project, including an open source test system.
In addition to this, the LTD also reuses the terminology defined by:
o Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices [RFC2285]
It is recommended that these references be included in future
benchmarking specifications:
o Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking [RFC3918]
o Packet Reordering Metrics [RFC4737]
As one might expect, the most fundamental internetworking
characteristics of throughput and latency remain important when the
switch is virtualized, and these benchmarks figure prominently in the
specification.
When considering characteristics important to "telco" network
functions, additional performance metrics are needed. In this case,
the project specifications have referenced metrics from the IETF IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) literature. This means that the latency
test described in [RFC2544] is replaced by measurement of a metric
derived from IPPM's [RFC7679], where a set of statistical summaries
will be provided (mean, max, min, and percentiles). Further metrics
planned to be benchmarked include packet delay variation as defined
by [RFC5481], reordering, burst behaviour, DUT availability, DUT
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
capacity, and packet loss in long-term testing at the throughput
level, where some low level of background loss may be present and
characterized.
Tests have been designed to collect the metrics below:
o Throughput tests are designed to measure the maximum forwarding
rate (in frames per second, fps) and bit rate (in Mbps) for a
constant load (as defined by [RFC1242]) without traffic loss.
o Packet and frame-delay distribution tests are designed to measure
the average minimum and maximum packet (and/or frame) delay for
constant loads.
o Packet delay tests are designed to understand latency distribution
for different packet sizes and to uncover outliers over an
extended test run.
o Scalability tests are designed to understand how the virtual
switch performs with an increasing number of flows, number of
active ports, configuration complexity of the forwarding logic,
etc.
o Stream performance tests (with TCP or UDP) are designed to measure
bulk data transfer performance, i.e., how fast systems can send
and receive data through the switch.
o Control-path and data-path coupling tests are designed to
understand how closely the data path and the control path are
coupled, as well as the effect of this coupling on the performance
of the DUT (for example, delay of the initial packet of a flow).
o CPU and memory consumption tests are designed to understand the
virtual switch's footprint on the system and are conducted as
auxiliary measurements with the benchmarks above. They include
CPU utilization, cache utilization, and memory footprint.
o The so-called "soak" tests, where the selected test is conducted
over a long period of time (with an ideal duration of 24 hours but
only long enough to determine that stability issues exist when
found; there is no requirement to continue a test when a DUT
exhibits instability over time). The key performance
characteristics and benchmarks for a DUT are determined (using
short duration tests) prior to conducting soak tests. The purpose
of soak tests is to capture transient changes in performance,
which may occur due to infrequent processes, memory leaks, or the
low-probability coincidence of two or more processes. The
stability of the DUT is the paramount consideration, so
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
performance must be evaluated periodically during continuous
testing, and this results in use of frame rate metrics [RFC2889]
instead of throughput [RFC2544] (which requires stopping traffic
to allow time for all traffic to exit internal queues), for
example.
Additional test specification development should include:
o Request/response performance tests (with TCP or UDP), which
measure the transaction rate through the switch.
o Noisy neighbor tests, in order to understand the effects of
resource sharing on the performance of a virtual switch.
o Tests derived from examination of ETSI NFV Draft GS IFA003
requirements [IFA003] on characterization of acceleration
technologies applied to vSwitches.
The flexibility of deployment of a virtual switch within a network
means that it is necessary to characterize the performance of a
vSwitch in various deployment scenarios. The deployment scenarios
under consideration are shown in the following figures:
__
+--------------------------------------------------+ |
| +--------------------+ | |
| | | | |
| | v | | Host
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Guest
| : v | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port 0| | Logical Port 1| | |
+---+---------------+-----------+---------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v __
+---+---------------+----------+---------------+---+ |
| | Logical Port 0| | Logical Port 1| | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ : | |
| | | | | Host
| : v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+---+--------------+------------+--------------+---+ __|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF to Virtual Switch to
Physical Port
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| ^ | | | ^ | | |
| | v | | | v | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Ports | | | | Logical Ports | | |
| | 0 1 | | | | 0 1 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
^ : ^ :
| | | |
: v : v _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 0 1 | | 3 4 | | |
| | Logical Ports | | Logical Ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| ^ | ^ | | | Host
| | \-----------------/ v | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Ports | vSwitch | PHY Ports | | |
+---+--------------+----------+--------------+---+_|
^ :
| |
: v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF to Virtual Switch to
VNF to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Guest
| : | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port 0| | |
+---+---------------+-------------------------------+ __|
^
|
: __
+---+---------------+------------------------------+ |
| | Logical Port 0| | |
| +---------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | | Host
| : | |
| +--------------+ | |
| | PHY Port | vSwitch | |
+---+--------------+------------ -------------- ---+ __|
^
|
:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Physical Port to Virtual Switch to VNF
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
__
+---------------------------------------------------+ |
| | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| | Application | | |
| +-------------------------------------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Guest
| v | |
| +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Port | | |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---+ __|
:
|
v __
+------------------------------+---------------+---+ |
| | Logical Port | | |
| +---------------+ | |
| : | |
| | | | Host
| v | |
| +--------------+ | |
| vSwitch | PHY Port | | |
+-------------------------------+--------------+---+ __|
:
|
v
+--------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Traffic Generator |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: VNF to Virtual Switch to Physical Port
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
__
+----------------------+ +----------------------+ |
| Guest 1 | | Guest 2 | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Application | | | | Application | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | | | ^ | |
| v | | | | | Guests
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ | |
| | Logical Ports | | | | Logical Ports | | |
| | 0 | | | | 0 | | |
+---+---------------+--+ +---+---------------+--+__|
: ^
| |
v : _
+---+---------------+---------+---------------+--+ |
| | 1 | | 1 | | |
| | Logical Ports | | Logical Ports | | |
| +---------------+ +---------------+ | |
| | ^ | | Host
| \-----------------/ | |
| | |
| vSwitch | |
+------------------------------------------------+_|
Figure 8: VNF to Virtual Switch to VNF
A set of deployment scenario figures is available on the VSPERF "Test
Methodology" wiki page [TestTopo].
5. 3x3 Matrix Coverage
This section organizes the many existing test specifications into the
"3x3" matrix (introduced in [RFC8172]). Because the LTD
specification ID names are quite long, this section is organized into
lists for each occupied cell of the matrix (not all are occupied;
also, the matrix has grown to 3x4 to accommodate scale metrics when
displaying the coverage of many metrics/benchmarks). The current
version of the LTD specification is available; see [LTD].
The tests listed below assess the activation of paths in the data
plane rather than the control plane.
A complete list of tests with short summaries is available on the
VSPERF "LTD Test Spec Overview" wiki page [LTDoverV].
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
5.1. Speed of Activation
o Activation.RFC2889.AddressLearningRate
o PacketLatency.InitialPacketProcessingLatency
5.2. Accuracy of Activation
o CPDP.Coupling.Flow.Addition
5.3. Reliability of Activation
o Throughput.RFC2544.SystemRecoveryTime
o Throughput.RFC2544.ResetTime
5.4. Scale of Activation
o Activation.RFC2889.AddressCachingCapacity
5.5. Speed of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRate
o Stress.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o Throughput.RFC2544.PacketLossRateFrameModification
o Throughput.RFC2544.BackToBackFrames
o Throughput.RFC2889.MaxForwardingRate
o Throughput.RFC2889.ForwardPressure
o Throughput.RFC2889.BroadcastFrameForwarding
o Throughput.RFC2544.WorstN-BestN
o Throughput.Overlay.Network.<tech>.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
5.6. Accuracy of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.ErrorFramesFiltering
o Throughput.RFC2544.Profile
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
5.7. Reliability of Operation
o Throughput.RFC2889.Soak
o Throughput.RFC2889.SoakFrameModification
o PacketDelayVariation.RFC3393.Soak
5.8. Scalability of Operation
o Scalability.RFC2544.0PacketLoss
o MemoryBandwidth.RFC2544.0PacketLoss.Scalability
o Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossProfile
o Scalability.VNF.RFC2544.PacketLossRatio
5.9. Summary
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| | SPEED | ACCURACY | RELIABILITY | SCALE |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Activation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| Operation | X | X | X | X |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| | | | | |
| De-activation| | | | |
| | | | | |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
6. Security Considerations
Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
technology characterization of a Device Under Test/System Under Test
(DUT/SUT) using controlled stimuli in a laboratory environment with
dedicated address space and the constraints specified in the sections
above.
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 and relies
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.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC2285] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", RFC 2285, DOI 10.17487/RFC2285,
February 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2285>.
[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>.
[RFC3918] Stopp, D. and B. Hickman, "Methodology for IP Multicast
Benchmarking", RFC 3918, DOI 10.17487/RFC3918, October
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3918>.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[BENCHMARK-METHOD]
Huang, L., Ed., Rong, G., Ed., Mandeville, B., and B.
Hickman, "Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization
Network Performance", Work in Progress, draft-huang-bmwg-
virtual-network-performance-03, July 2017.
[DanubeRel]
OPNFV, "Danube",
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Danube>.
[IEEE802.1ac]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Service
Definition", IEEE 802.1AC-2016,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.7875381, 2016,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1AC-2016.html>.
[IEEE829] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Software and System Test
Documentation", IEEE 829-2008,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4578383,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4578383/>.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
[IFA003] ETSI, "Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV);
Acceleration Technologies; vSwitch Benchmarking and
Acceleration Specification", ETSI GS NFV-IFA 003 V2.1.1,
April 2016, <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
NFV-IFA/001_099/003/02.01.01_60/
gs_NFV-IFA003v020101p.pdf>.
[LTD] Tahhan, M., "VSPERF Level Test Design (LTD)",
<http://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-danube/
submodules/vswitchperf/docs/testing/developer/
requirements/vswitchperf_ltd.html#>.
[LTDoverV] Morton, A., "LTD Test Spec Overview",
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/
LTD+Test+Spec+Overview>.
[OPNFV] OPNFV, "OPNFV", <https://www.opnfv.org/>.
[RFC1242] Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1242>.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.
[RFC8172] Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", RFC 8172,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8172, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8172>.
[TestTopo] Snyder, E., "Test Methodology",
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/Test+Methodology>.
[VSPERFhome]
Tahhan, M., "VSPERF Home",
<https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vsperf/VSperf+Home>.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate and acknowledge comments from Scott Bradner,
Marius Georgescu, Ramki Krishnan, Doug Montgomery, Martin Klozik,
Christian Trautman, Benoit Claise, and others for their reviews.
We also acknowledge the early work in [BENCHMARK-METHOD] and useful
discussion with the authors.
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 8204 Benchmarking vSwitches September 2017
Authors' Addresses
Maryam Tahhan
Intel
Email: maryam.tahhan@intel.com
Billy O'Mahony
Intel
Email: billy.o.mahony@intel.com
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748
United States of America
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
Tahhan, et al. Informational [Page 24]