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

Versions: 00

   Network Working Group
   INTERNET-DRAFT
   Expires in: October 2005
                                                   Scott Poretsky
                                                   Reef Point Systems

                                                   Shankar Rao
                                                   Qwest Communications

                                                   July 2005

                    Methodology for Benchmarking
              Accelerated Stress with Operational Security
             <draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-opsec-00.txt>

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Status of this Memo

   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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
   as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

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

   ABSTRACT
   Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
   multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
   being managed.  To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
   necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
   conditions, which is known as Stress Testing.  This document provides
   the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking of networking
   devices when subjected to instability as described in [7].
   Descriptions of test topology, benchmarks and reporting format are
   provided in addition to procedures for conducting various test cases.
   This methodology is based upon the accelerated stress methodology
   guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
   document [4].

Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005

   Table of Contents
     1. Introduction ............................................... 2
     2. Existing definitions ....................................... 2
     3. Test Setup.................................................. 2
     4. Test Cases.................................................. 3
     4.1 Restart Under Load......................................... 3
     4.2 Destination Control Processor.............................. 3
     4.3 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting........... 4
     4.4 Destination Interfaces..................................... 4
     4.5 DoS Attack................................................. 5
     5. Security Considerations..................................... 5
     6. Normative References........................................ 5
     7. Informative References...................................... 6
     8. Author's Address............................................ 6

1. Introduction

   Routers in an operational network are simultaneously configured with
   multiple protocols and security policies while forwarding traffic and
   being managed.  To accurately benchmark a router for deployment it is
   necessary that the router be tested in these simultaneous operational
   conditions, which is known as Stress Testing.  This document provides
   the Methodology for performing Stress Benchmarking of networking
   devices when subjected to instability as described in the OpSec
   Requirements for Service Providers [7].  Descriptions of
   Test Topology, Benchmarks and  Reporting Format are provided in
   addition to procedures for conducting various test cases.  This
   methodology is based upon the accelerated stress methodology
   guidelines [6] and is to be used with the companion terminology
   document [4].

2.  Existing definitions
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [8].  RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
   intent of standards track documents as clear as possible.  While this
   document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
   document.

   Terms related to Accelerated Stress Benchmarking are defined in [4].

3. Test Setup

   Test Setup, Test Topologies, Considerations, and Reporting Format
   MUST be as described in [6].







Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005

4. Test Cases

     4.1 Restart Under Load

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the DUT
        during restart when stress conditions are applied.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Restart DUT. This marks the beginning on the recovery period.
        6. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        7. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
           Conditions for next iteration
        NOTE 1: Restart via the DUT's  Command Line Interface rather than
                power cycle is typically more stressful than power cycle
                since hardware can maintain state.
        NOTE 2: Instability Conditions are not applied for this test case.

        Results
        DUT should re-establish all control protocol sessions and have
        a Recovery Time [4] that is not infinite.

     4.2 Destination Control Processor
        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the Control Processor of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so that the
           offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
           control processor
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
        It is possible that significant session loss is observed.

Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005

     4.3 Destination Control Processor with Rate-Limiting

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the Control processor of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Apply policy filter to rate-limit traffic arriving at the Central
           Processor to be only 1% of the offered load.
        3. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        4. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        5. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        6. Apply Instability Conditions
        7. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so that the
           offered load has a destination address that is the DUT's central
           control processor
        8. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        9. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        10. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        11. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.  There should be
        no session loss observed.

     4.4 Destination Interfaces
        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance
        of the DUT during stress conditions when traffic is destined for
        the interfaces of the DUT.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Start Configuration Sets with the DUT, except Data Plane
           Configuration Set
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Send offered load at maximum forwarding rate of DUT interfaces
           to all DUT interfaces.  Traffic MUST be configured so that the
           offered load has destination addresses of the interfaces receiving
           traffic.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions, including data traffic
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
            Conditions for next iteration

Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005

        Results
        Results will vary with specific vendor implementations.
        There should be no session loss observed.

     4.5 DoS Attack

        Objective
        The purpose of this test is to benchmark the performance of the
        DUT during stress conditions while experiencing a DoS attack.

        Procedure
        1. Report Configuration Set
        2. Begin Startup Conditions with the DUT
        3. Establish Configuration Sets with the DUT
        4. Report benchmarks (for stability)
        5. Apply Instability Conditions
        6. Initiate DoS Attack against DUT.  It is RECOMMENDED that
           the SYN Flood attack be used for the DoS attack.
        7. Report benchmarks (for instability)
        8. Stop applying all Instability Conditions
        9. Report benchmarks (for recovery)
        10. Optional - Change Configuration Set and/or Instability
           Conditions for next iteration

        Results
        DUT should be able to defend against DoS attack without additional
        packet loss or session loss.

5. Security Considerations
        Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
        the Internet or of corporate networks as long as benchmarking
        is not performed on devices or systems connected to operating
        networks.

6. Normative References

      [1]   Bradner, S., Editor, "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
            Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, July 1991.

      [2]   Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
            Devices", RFC 2285, June 1998.

      [3]   Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
            Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.

      [4]   Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Terminology for Accelerated
            Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-05,
            work in progress, July 2005.

      [5]   Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for IGP Data Plane
            Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-05,
            work in progress, July 2005.

Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005

      [6]   Poretsky, S. and Rao, S., "Methodology Guidelines for Accelerated
            Stress Benchmarking", draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-03,
            work in progress, July 2005.

      [7]   RFC 3871 "Operational Security Requirements for Large
            Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network Infrastructure.
            G. Jones, Ed.. IETF, September 2004.

      [8]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
            Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.


7. Informative References


      [NANOG25]   "Core Router Evaluation for Higher Availability", Scott
            Poretsky, NANOG 25, June 8, 2002, Toronto, CA.

      [IEEECQR]   "Router Stress Testing to Validate Readiness for Network
            Deployment", Scott Poretsky, IEEE CQR 2003.

      [CONVMETH]   Poretsky, S., "Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane
            Route Convergence", draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-05,
            work in progress, July 2005.



8. Author's Address

        Scott Poretsky
        Reef Point Systems
        8 New England Executive Park
        Burlington, MA 01803
        USA

        Phone: + 1 781 395 5090
        EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com

        Shankar Rao
        1801 California Street
        8th Floor
        Qwest Communications
        Denver, CO 80202
        USA
        Phone: + 1 303 437 6643
        Email: shankar.rao@qwest.com







Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT Methodology for Accelerated Stress Benchmarking  July 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intel-
lectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this docu-
ment or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might
not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent
effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the procedures with
respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be
obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
that may cover technology that may be required to implement this stan-
dard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Warranty

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR
IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.














Poretsky and Rao                                                        [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/