[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bmwg-dcbench-methodology) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Internet Engineering Task Force                               L. Avramov
INTERNET-DRAFT, Intended Status: Informational                    Google
Expires December 20,2017                                         J. Rapp
June 18, 2017                                                     VMware






                  Data Center Benchmarking Methodology
                 draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12

Abstract

   The purpose of this informational document is to establish test and
   evaluation methodology and measurement techniques for physical
   network equipment in the data center. Many of these terms and methods
   may be applicable beyond this publication's scope as the technologies
   originally applied in the data center are deployed elsewhere.

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."

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



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

















































Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation . . . .  5
   2. Line Rate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1 Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2 Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3. Buffering Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1 Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2 Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3 Reporting format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4 Microburst Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1 Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2 Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5. Head of Line Blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1 Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2 Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.1 Objective  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.2 Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.3 Reporting Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     9.2.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19



1.  Introduction

   Traffic patterns in the data center are not uniform and are
   constantly changing. They are dictated by the nature and variety of
   applications utilized in the data center. It can be largely east-west
   traffic flows in one data center and north-south in another, while
   others may combine both. Traffic patterns can be bursty in nature and
   contain many-to-one, many-to-many, or one-to-many flows. Each flow
   may also be small and latency sensitive or large and throughput
   sensitive while containing a mix of UDP and TCP traffic. All of these
   can coexist in a single cluster and flow through a single network
   device simultaneously. Benchmarking of network devices have long used
   [RFC1242], [RFC2432], [RFC2544], [RFC2889] and [RFC3918] which have



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   largely been focused around various latency attributes and Throughput
   [RFC2889] of the Device Under Test (DUT) being benchmarked. These
   standards are good at measuring theoretical Throughput, forwarding
   rates and latency under testing conditions; however, they do not
   represent real traffic patterns that may affect these networking
   devices.

   The following provides a methodology for benchmarking Data Center
   physical network equipment DUT including congestion scenarios, switch
   buffer analysis, microburst, head of line blocking, while also using
   a wide mix of traffic conditions. The terminology document [1] is a
   pre-requisite.







































Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

1.2. Methodology format and repeatability recommendation

   The format used for each section of this document is the following:

   -Objective

   -Methodology

   -Reporting Format: Additional interpretation of RFC2119 terms:

   MUST: required metric or benchmark for the scenario described
   (minimum)

   SHOULD or RECOMMENDED: strongly suggested metric for the scenario
   described

   MAY: Optional metric for the scenario described

   For each test methodology described, it is critical to obtain
   repeatability in the results. The recommendation is to perform enough
   iterations of the given test and to make sure the result is
   consistent. This is especially important for section 3, as the
   buffering testing has been historically the least reliable. The
   number of iterations SHOULD be explicitly reported. The relative
   standard deviation SHOULD be below 10%.


2. Line Rate Testing

2.1 Objective

   Provide a maximum rate test for the performance values for
   Throughput, latency and jitter. It is meant to provide the tests to
   perform, and methodology to verify that a DUT is capable of
   forwarding packets at line rate under non-congested conditions.


2.2 Methodology

   A traffic generator SHOULD be connected to all ports on the DUT. Two
   tests MUST be conducted: a port-pair test [RFC 2544/3918 section 15
   compliant] and also in a full mesh type of DUT test [2889/3918



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   section 16 compliant].

   For all tests, the test traffic generator sending rate MUST be less
   than or equal to 99.98% of the nominal value of Line Rate (with no
   further PPM adjustment to account for interface clock tolerances), to
   ensure stressing the DUT in reasonable worst case conditions (see RFC
   [1] section 5 for more details --note to RFC Editor, please replace
   all [1] references in this document with the future RFC number of
   that draft). Tests results at a lower rate MAY be provided for better
   understanding of performance increase in terms of latency and jitter
   when the rate is lower than 99.98%. The receiving rate of the traffic
   SHOULD be captured during this test in % of line rate.

   The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum
   of the latency distribution, for the exact same iteration of the
   test.

   The test MUST provide the statistics of minimum, average and maximum
   of the jitter distribution, for the exact same iteration of the test.

   Alternatively when a traffic generator can not be connected to all
   ports on the DUT, a snake test MUST be used for line rate testing,
   excluding latency and jitter as those became then irrelevant. The
   snake test consists in the following method:

   -connect the first and last port of the DUT to a traffic generator

   -connect back to back sequentially all the ports in between: port 2
   to 3, port 4 to 5 etc to port n-2 to port n-1; where n is the total
   number of ports of the DUT

   -configure port 1 and 2 in the same vlan X, port 3 and 4 in the same
   vlan Y, etc. port n-1 and port n in the same vlan Z.

   This snake test provides a capability to test line rate for Layer 2
   and Layer 3 RFC 2544/3918 in instance where a traffic generator with
   only two ports is available. The latency and jitter are not to be
   considered with this test.



2.3 Reporting Format

   The report MUST include:

   -physical layer calibration information as defined into [1] section
   4.




Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   -number of ports used

   -reading for "Throughput received in percentage of bandwidth", while
   sending 99.98% of nominal value of Line Rate on each port, for each
   packet size from 64 bytes to 9216 bytes. As guidance, an increment of
   64 byte packet size between each iteration being ideal, a 256 byte
   and 512 bytes being are also often used. The most common packets
   sizes order for the report is:
   64b,128b,256b,512b,1024b,1518b,4096,8000,9216b.

   The pattern for testing can be expressed using [RFC 6985].

   -Throughput needs to be expressed in % of total transmitted frames

   -For packet drops, they MUST be expressed as a count of packets and
   SHOULD be expressed in % of line rate

   -For latency and jitter, values expressed in unit of time [usually
   microsecond or nanosecond] reading across packet size from 64 bytes
   to 9216 bytes

   -For latency and jitter, provide minimum, average and maximum values.
   If different iterations are done to gather the minimum, average and
   maximum, it SHOULD be specified in the report along with a
   justification on why the information could not have been gathered at
   the same test iteration

   -For jitter, a histogram describing the population of packets
   measured per latency or latency buckets is RECOMMENDED

   -The tests for Throughput, latency and jitter MAY be conducted as
   individual independent trials, with proper documentation in the
   report but SHOULD be conducted at the same time.

   -The methodology makes an assumption that the DUT has at least nine
   ports, as certain methodologies require that number of ports or
   more.




3. Buffering Testing

3.1 Objective

   To measure the size of the buffer of a DUT under
   typical|many|multiple conditions. Buffer architectures between
   multiple DUTs can differ and include egress buffering, shared egress



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   buffering SoC (Switch-on-Chip), ingress buffering or a combination.
   The test methodology covers the buffer measurement regardless of
   buffer architecture used in the DUT.

3.2 Methodology

   A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT.

   The methodology for measuring buffering for a data-center switch is
   based on using known congestion of known fixed packet size along with
   maximum latency value measurements. The maximum latency will increase
   until the first packet drop occurs. At this point, the maximum
   latency value will remain constant. This is the point of inflection
   of this maximum latency change to a constant value. There MUST be
   multiple ingress ports receiving known amount of frames at a known
   fixed size, destined for the same egress port in order to create a
   known congestion condition. The total amount of packets sent from the
   oversubscribed port minus one, multiplied by the packet size
   represents the maximum port buffer size at the measured inflection
   point.

   1) Measure the highest buffer efficiency

   First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
   while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
   (1% recommended) with a packet size of 64 bytes to egress port 2.
   Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
   port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
   multiplied by the frame size.

   Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
   while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
   (1% recommended) with same packet size 65 bytes to egress port 2.
   Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
   port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
   multiplied by the frame size.

   Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
   while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
   (1% recommended) with same packet size B bytes to egress port 2.
   Measure the buffer size value of the number of frames sent from the
   port sending the oversubscribed traffic up to the inflection point
   multiplied by the frame size.

   When the B value is found to provide the largest buffer size, then
   size B allows the highest buffer efficiency.

   2) Measure maximum port buffer size



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   At fixed packet size B determined in procedure 1), for a fixed
   default Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)/Class of Service
   (COS) value of 0 and for unicast traffic proceed with the following:

   First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2,
   while port 3 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
   (1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 2. Measure
   the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent
   by the frame size.

   Second iteration:  ingress port 2 sending line rate to egress port 3,
   while port 4 sending a known low amount of over-subscription traffic
   (1% recommended) with same packet size to the egress port 3. Measure
   the buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames sent
   by the frame size.

   Last iteration: ingress port N-2 sending line rate traffic to egress
   port N-1, while port N sending a known low amount of over-
   subscription traffic (1% recommended) with same packet size to the
   egress port N. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
   number of extra frames sent by the frame size.

   This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values
   of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic, in order to find
   if there is any DSCP/COS impact on the buffer size.

   3) Measure maximum port pair buffer sizes

   First iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
   ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
   N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
   port 2 and port 3. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
   number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port.

   Second iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
   ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
   N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
   port 4 and port 5. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying the
   number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress port.

   Last iteration: ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress port 2;
   ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4 etc. Ingress port
   N-1 and N will respectively over subscribe at 1% of line rate egress
   port N-3 and port N-2. Measure the buffer size value by multiplying
   the number of extra frames sent by the frame size for each egress
   port.

   This test series MAY be repeated using all different DSCP/COS values



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017                [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   of traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic.

   4) Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to one ports

   First iteration: ingress ports 1,2,... N-1 sending each [(1/[N-
   1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N egress port.

   Second iteration: ingress ports 2,... N sending each [(1/[N-
   1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the 1 egress port.

   Last iteration: ingress ports N,1,2...N-2 sending each [(1/[N-
   1])*99.98]+[1/[N-1]] % of line rate per port to the N-1 egress port.

   This test series MAY be repeated using all different COS values of
   traffic and then using Multicast type of traffic.

   Unicast traffic and then Multicast traffic SHOULD be used in order to
   determine the proportion of buffer for documented selection of tests.
   Also the COS value for the packets SHOULD be provided for each test
   iteration as the buffer allocation size MAY differ per COS value. It
   is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in a
   random, but documented fashion in multiple tests to measure the
   buffer size for each port of the DUT.


3.3 Reporting format

   The report MUST include:

    - The packet size used for the most efficient buffer used, along
   with DSCP/COS value

    - The maximum port buffer size for each port

    - The maximum DUT buffer size

    - The packet size used in the test

    - The amount of over-subscription if different than 1%

    - The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location
   on the DUT

    - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
   iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
   results for each of the tests (min, max, avg)

   The percentage of variation is a metric providing a sense of how big



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   the difference between the measured value and the previous ones.

   For example, for a latency test where the minimum latency is
   measured, the percentage of variation of the minimum latency will
   indicate by how much this value has varied between the current test
   executed and the previous one.

   PV=((x2-x1)/x1)*100 where x2 is the minimum latency value in the
   current test and x1 is the minimum latency value obtained in the
   previous test.

   The same formula is used for max and avg variations measured.

4 Microburst Testing

4.1 Objective

   To find the maximum amount of packet bursts a DUT can sustain under
   various configurations.

   This test provides additional methodology to the other RFC tests:

   -All bursts should be send with 100% intensity

   -All ports of the DUT must be used for this test

   -All ports are recommended to be testes simultaneously


4.2 Methodology

   A traffic generator MUST be connected to all ports on the DUT. In
   order to cause congestion, two or more ingress ports MUST send bursts
   of packets destined for the same egress port. The simplest of the
   setups would be two ingress ports and one egress port (2-to-1).

   The burst MUST be sent with an intensity of 100%, meaning the burst
   of packets will be sent with a minimum inter-packet gap. The amount
   of packet contained in the burst will be trial variable and increase
   until there is a non-zero packet loss measured. The aggregate amount
   of packets from all the senders will be used to calculate the maximum
   amount of microburst the DUT can sustain.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in
   multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity.

   The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the
   microburst capacity at various ingress rates. Intensity of microburst



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   is defined in [1].

   It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT will be tested
   simultaneously and in various configurations in order to understand
   all the combinations of ingress ports, egress ports and intensities.

   An example would be:

   First Iteration: N-1 Ingress ports sending to 1 Egress Ports

   Second Iterations: N-2 Ingress ports sending to 2 Egress Ports

   Last Iterations: 2 Ingress ports sending to N-2 Egress Ports

4.3 Reporting Format

   The report MUST include:

    - The maximum number of packets received per ingress port with the
   maximum burst size obtained with zero packet loss

    - The packet size used in the test

    - The number of ingress and egress ports along with their location
   on the DUT

    - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
   iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
   results (min, max, avg)


5. Head of Line Blocking

5.1 Objective

   Head-of-line blocking (HOLB) is a performance-limiting phenomenon
   that occurs when packets are held-up by the first packet ahead
   waiting to be transmitted to a different output port. This is defined
   in RFC 2889 section 5.5, Congestion Control. This section expands on
   RFC 2889 in the context of Data Center Benchmarking.

   The objective of this test is to understand the DUT behavior under
   head of line blocking scenario and measure the packet loss.

   Here are the differences between this HOLB test and RFC 2889:

   -This HOLB starts with 8 ports in two groups of 4, instead of 4 RFC
   2889



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   -This HOLB shifts all the port numbers by one in a second iteration
   of the test, this is new compared to RFC 2889. The shifting port
   numbers continue until all ports are the first in the group. The
   purpose is to make sure to have tested all permutations to cover
   differences of behavior in the SoC of the DUT

   -Another test in this HOLB expands the group of ports, such that
   traffic is divided among 4 ports instead of two (25% instead of 50%
   per port)

   -Section 5.3 adds additional reporting requirements from Congestion
   Control in RFC 2889



5.2 Methodology

   In order to cause congestion in the form of head of line blocking,
   groups of four ports are used. A group has 2 ingress and 2 egress
   ports. The first ingress port MUST have two flows configured each
   going to a different egress port. The second ingress port will
   congest the second egress port by sending line rate. The goal is to
   measure if there is loss on the flow for the first egress port which
   is not over-subscribed.


   A traffic generator MUST be connected to at least eight ports on the
   DUT and SHOULD be connected using all the DUT ports.

   1) Measure two groups with eight DUT ports

   First iteration: measure the packet loss for two groups with
   consecutive ports

   The first group is composed of: ingress port 1 is sending 50% of
   traffic to egress port 3 and ingress port 1 is sending 50% of traffic
   to egress port 4. Ingress port 2 is sending line rate to egress port
   4. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
   port 1 to egress port 3.

   The second group is composed of: ingress port 5 is sending 50% of
   traffic to egress port 7 and ingress port 5 is sending 50% of traffic
   to egress port 8. Ingress port 6 is sending line rate to egress port
   8. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
   port 5 to egress port 7.

   Second iteration: repeat the first iteration by shifting all the
   ports from N to N+1.



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   The first group is composed of: ingress port 2 is sending 50% of
   traffic to egress port 4 and ingress port 2 is sending 50% of traffic
   to egress port 5. Ingress port 3 is sending line rate to egress port
   5. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
   port 2 to egress port 4.

   The second group is composed of: ingress port 6 is sending 50% of
   traffic to egress port 8 and ingress port 6 is sending 50% of traffic
   to egress port 9. Ingress port 7 is sending line rate to egress port
   9. Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress
   port 6 to egress port 8.

   Last iteration: when the first port of the first group is connected
   on the last DUT port and the last port of the second group is
   connected to the seventh port of the DUT.

   Measure the amount of traffic loss for the traffic from ingress port
   N to egress port 2 and from ingress port 4 to egress port 6.


   2) Measure with N/4 groups with N DUT ports

   The traffic from ingress split across 4 egress ports (100/4=25%).

   First iteration: Expand to fully utilize all the DUT ports in
   increments of four. Repeat the methodology of 1) with all the group
   of ports possible to achieve on the device and measure for each port
   group the amount of traffic loss.

   Second iteration: Shift by +1 the start of each consecutive ports of
   groups

   Last iteration: Shift by N-1 the start of each consecutive ports of
   groups and measure the traffic loss for each port group.



5.3 Reporting Format

   For each test the report MUST include:

   - The port configuration including the number and location of ingress
   and egress ports located on the DUT

   - If HOLB was observed in accordance with the HOLB test in section 5

   - Percent of traffic loss




Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
   iteration of the same test and percentage of variation between
   results (min, max, avg)

6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic

6.1 Objective

   The objective of this test is to measure the values for TCP Goodput
   [4] and latency with a mix of large and small flows. The test is
   designed to simulate a mixed environment of stateful flows that
   require high rates of goodput and stateless flows that require low
   latency.

6.2 Methodology

   In order to simulate the effects of stateless and stateful traffic on
   the DUT, there MUST be multiple ingress ports receiving traffic
   destined for the same egress port. There also MAY be a mix of
   stateful and stateless traffic arriving on a single ingress port. The
   simplest setup would be 2 ingress ports receiving traffic destined to
   the same egress port.

   One ingress port MUST be maintaining a TCP connection trough the
   ingress port to a receiver connected to an egress port. Traffic in
   the TCP stream MUST be sent at the maximum rate allowed by the
   traffic generator. At the same time, the TCP traffic is flowing
   through the DUT the stateless traffic is sent destined to a receiver
   on the same egress port. The stateless traffic MUST be a microburst
   of 100% intensity.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the ingress and egress ports are varied in
   multiple tests to measure the maximum microburst capacity.

   The intensity of a microburst MAY be varied in order to obtain the
   microburst capacity at various ingress rates.

   It is RECOMMENDED that all ports on the DUT be used in the test.

   For example:

   Stateful Traffic port variation:

   During Iterations number of Egress ports MAY vary as well.

   First Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port




Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   Second Iteration: 2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port

   Last Iteration: N-2 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port

   Stateless Traffic port variation:

   During Iterations, the number of Egress ports MAY vary as well. First
   Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 1
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port

   Second Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and 2
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port

   Last Iteration: 1 Ingress port receiving stateful TCP traffic and N-2
   Ingress port receiving stateless traffic destined to 1 Egress Port

6.3 Reporting Format

   The report MUST include the following:

   - Number of ingress and egress ports along with designation of
   stateful or stateless flow assignment.

   - Stateful flow goodput

   - Stateless flow latency

   - The repeatability of the test needs to be indicated: number of
   iterations of the same test and percentage of variation between
   results (min, max, avg)

7.  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 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, relying
   solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.




Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


   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.

8.  IANA Considerations

   NO IANA Action is requested at this time.


9.  References








































Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1242] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
         Interconnection Devices", BCP 14, RFC 1242, DOI
         10.17487/RFC1242, July 1991, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc1242>

   [RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
         Network Interconnect Devices", BCP 14, RFC 2544, DOI
         10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2544>




9.2.  Informative References

   [1]  Avramov L. and Rapp J., "Data Center Benchmarking Terminology",
         April 2017.

   [RFC2889] Mandeville R. and Perser J., "Benchmarking Methodology for
         LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889, August 2000, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2889>

   [RFC3918] Stopp D. and Hickman B., "Methodology for IP Multicast
         Benchmarking", RFC 3918, October 2004, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3918>

         [RFC 6985] A. Morton, "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable
         Packet Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6985>

   [4]  Yanpei Chen, Rean Griffith, Junda Liu, Randy H. Katz, Anthony D.
         Joseph, "Understanding TCP Incast Throughput Collapse in
         Datacenter Networks,
         "http://yanpeichen.com/professional/usenixLoginIncastReady.pdf"

         [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
         Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,
         March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>

         [RFC2432] Dubray, K., "Terminology for IP Multicast
         Benchmarking", BCP 14, RFC 2432, DOI 10.17487/RFC2432, October
         1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2432>



9.2.  Acknowledgements



Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT    Data Center Benchmarking Methodology     June 18, 2017


         The authors would like to thank Alfred Morton and Scott Bradner
         for their reviews and feedback.

Authors' Addresses


         Lucien Avramov
         Google
         1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
         Mountain View, CA 94043
         United States
         Phone: +1 408 774 9077
         Email: lucienav@google.com

         Jacob Rapp
         VMware
         3401 Hillview Ave
         Palo Alto, CA
         United States
         Phone: +1 650 857 3367
         Email: jrapp@vmware.com






























Avramov & Rapp         Expires December 20, 2017               [Page 19]


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