[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4063

Network Working Group                                     Vishwas Manral
Internet Draft                                          Netplane Systems
                                                              Russ White
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             Aman Shaikh
Expiration Date: December 2002                  University of California
File Name: draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt       June 2002

         Benchmarking Applicability for Basic OSPF Convergence
             draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt


1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
   draft" or "work in progress".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


2. Abstract

   This draft describes the applicability of [2] and similar work which
   may be done in the future. Refer to [3] for terminology used in this
   draft and [2]. The draft defines the advantages as well as
   limitations of using the method defined in [2], besides describing
   the pitfalls to avoid during measurement.










Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


3. 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 [1].


4. Motivation

   There is a growing interest in testing SR-Convergence for routing
   protocols, with many people looking at testing methodologies which
   can provide information on how long it takes for a network to
   converge after various network events occur. It is important to
   consider the framework within which any given convergence test is
   executed when attempting to apply the results of the testing, since
   the framework can have a major impact on the results. For instance,
   determining when a network is converged, what parts of the router's
   operation are considered within the testing, and other such things
   will have a major impact on what apparent performance routing
   protocols provide.

   This document describes in detail the various benefits and pitfalls
   of tests described in [2]. It also explains how such measurements can
   be useful for providers and the research community.


5. Advantages of Such Measurement


   o    To be able to compare the iterations of a protocol implementa-
        tion. It is often useful to be able to compare the performance
        of two iterations of a given implementation of a protocol to
        determine where improvements have been made and where further
        improvements can be made.

   o    To understand, given a set parameters (network conditions), how
        a particular implementation on a particular device is going to
        perform. For instance, if you were trying to decide the process-
        ing power (size of device) required in a certain location within
        a network, you can emulate the conditions which are going to
        exist at that point in the network and use the test described to
        measure the perfomance of several different routers. The results
        of these tests can provide one possible data point for an intel-
        ligent decision.

        If the device being tested is to be deployed in a running net-
        work, using routes taken from the network where the equipment is
        to be deployed rather than some generated topology in these



Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


        tests will give results which are closer to the real preformance
        of the device. Care should be taken to emulate or take routes
        from the actual location in the network where the device will be
        (or would be) deployed. For instance, one set of routes may be
        taken from an abr, one set from an area 0 only router, various
        sets from stub area, another set from various normal areas, etc.

   o    To measure the performance of an OSPF implementation in a wide
        variety of scenarios.

   o    To be used as parameters in OSPF simulations by researchers. It
        may some times be required for certain kinds of research to
        measure the individual delays of each parameter within an OSPF
        implementation. These delays can be measured using the methods
        defined in [2].

   o    To help optimize certain configurable parameters. It may some
        times be helpful for operators to know the delay required for
        individual tasks so as to optimize the resource usage in the
        network i.e. if it is found that the processing time is x
        seconds on a router, it would be helpful to determine the rate
        at which to flood LSAs to that router so as to not overload the
        network.


6. Assumptions Made and Limitations of such measurements


    o    The interactions of SR-Convergence and forwarding; testing is
         restricted to events occurring within the control plane. For-
         warding performance is the primary focus in [4] and it is
         expected to be dealt with in work that ensues from [5].

    o    Duplicate LSAs are Acknowledged Immediately. A few tests rely
         on the property that duplicate LSA Acknowledgements are not
         delayed but are done immediately. However if some implementa-
         tion does not acknowledge duplicate LSAs immediately on
         receipt, the testing methods presented in [2] could give inac-
         curate measurements.

    o    It is assumed that SPF is non-preemptive. If SPF is implemented
         so that it can (and will be) preempted, the SPF measurements
         taken in [2] would include the times that the SPF process is
         not running ([2] measures the total time taken for SPF to run,
         not the amount of time that SPF actually spends on the device's
         processor), thus giving inaccurate measurements.

    o    Some implementations may be multithreaded or use a



Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


         multiprocess/multirouter model of OSPF. If because of this any
         of the assumptions taken in measurement are violated in such a
         model, it could lead to inaccurate measurements.

    o    The measurements resulting from the tests in [2] may not pro-
         vide the information required to deploy a device in a large
         scale network. The tests described focus on individual com-
         ponents of an OSPF implementation's performance, and it may be
         difficult to combine the measurements in a way which accurately
         depicts a device's performance in a large scale network.
         Further research is required in this area.


7. Observations on the Tests Described in [2]

   Some observations taken while implementing the tests described in [2]
   are noted in this section.


7.1. Measuring the SPF Processing Time Externally

   The most difficult test to perform is the external measurement of the
   time required to perform an SPF calculation, since the amount of time
   between the first LSA which indicates a topology change and the
   duplicate LSA is critical. If the duplicate LSA is sent too quickly,
   it may be received before the device under test actually begins run-
   ning SPF on the network change information. If the delay between the
   two LSAs is too long, the device under test may finish SPF processing
   before receiving the duplicate LSA. It is important to closely inves-
   tigate any delays between the receipt of an LSA and the beginning of
   an SPF calculation in the device under test; multiple tests with
   various delays might be required to determine what delay needs to be
   used to accurately measure the SPF calculation time.


7.2. Noise in the Measurement Device

   The device on which measurements are taken (not the device under
   test) also adds noise to the test results, primarily in the form of
   delay in packet processing and producing outout from which measure-
   ments are taken. The largest source of noise is generally the delay
   between the receipt of packets by the measuring device and the infor-
   mation about the packet reaching the device's output, where the event
   can be measured. The following steps may be taken to reduce this sam-
   pling noise:


    o    Take lot of samples. The more samples which are taken, the less



Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


         that noise in the measurements will impact the overall measure-
         ment, as noise will tend to average out over a large number of
         samples.

    o    Try to take time-stamp for a packet as early as possible.
         Depending on the operating system being used on the box, one
         can instrument the kernel to take the time-stamp when the
         interrupt is processed. This does not eliminate the noise com-
         pletely, but at least reduces it.

    o    Keep the measurement box as lightly loaded as possible, unless
         the loading is part of the test itself.

    o    Having an estimate of noise can also be useful.

         The DUT also adds noise to the measurement. The first and third
         points also apply to the DUT.


7.3. Gaining an Understanding of the Implementation Improves Measure-
   ments

   While the tester will (generally) not have access to internal infor-
   mation about the OSPF implementation being tested using [2], the more
   thorough the tester's knowledge of the implementation is, the more
   accurate the results of the tests will be. For instance, in some
   implementations, the installation of routes in local routing tables
   may occur while the SPF is being calculated, dramatically impacting
   the time required to calculate the SPF.


7.4. Gaining an Understanding of the Tests Improves Measurements

   One method which can be used to become familiar with the tests
   described in [2] is to perform the tests on an OSPF implementation
   for which all the internal details are available, such as GateD.
   While there is no assurance that any two implementations will be
   similar, this will provide a better understanding of the tests them-
   selves.












Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 5]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


8. Acknowledgements

    Thanks to Howard Berkowitz, (hcb@clark.net) and the rest of the BGP
   benchmarking team for their support and to Kevin
   Dubray(kdubray@juniper.net) who realized the need of this draft.


9. References


 [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
      Levels", RFC2119, March 1997.


 [2]  Manral, V., "Benchmarking Methodology for Basic OSPF Convergence",
      draft-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-00.txt, May 2002


 [3]  Manral, V., "OSPF Convergence Testing Terminology and Concepts",
      draft-bmwg-ospfconv-term-00.txt, My 2002


 [4]  Bradner, S., McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for Network
      Interconnect Devices", RFC2544, March 1999.


 [5]  Trotter, G., "Terminology for Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
      based Router Performance", RFC3222, October 2001.


10. Authors' Addresses
      Vishwas Manral
      Netplane Systems
      189 Prashasan Nagar
      Road number 72
      Jubilee Hills
      Hyderabad, India

      vmanral@netplane.com

      Russ White
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      7025 Kit Creek Rd.
      Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

      riw@cisco.com

      Aman Shaikh



Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 6]

INTERNET DRAFTdraft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-00.txt    June 2002


      University of California
      School of Engineering
      1156 High Street
      Santa Cruz, CA  95064

      aman@soe.ucsc.edu













































Manral, et. all                                                 [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/